It took me some time to watch this concert, although it`s really good. I don`t really know what stopped me from finishing watching this when I started it. Let`s start with a statement: by 1972 Deep Purple had recorded most of their classic material and after that have never managed to outplay themselves again. When we have this statement it`s clear how a concert from that time can be totally great. The song selection is superb - and I guess it`s a good thing that there`s no "Smoke on the Water" in sight. But what we do get kinda kicks the roof off: "Highway Star", "Strange Kind of Woman", "Fireball", "Child in Time" and "Black Night", "Space Truckin`". Plus there`s three more songs which I don`t find that good but they are no bad either. Ian Gillan`s vocal power is amazing, so is Blackmore`s guitar playing. Of course, the songs tend to be very long, with a lot of jamming going on, but that`s a good thing. And who cares that this video got no colors? The Beatles rarely were in color but did that make them worse that say "Nirvana"? I don`t think so. And this concert is surely not a great masterpiece in terms of camera work, but it`s a great masterpiece in terms of music. And what more can you ask for?

I gotta say that I had already seen this film before, there`s nothing to deny. But since it was some time ago, and I didn`t have a factoid back then, let`s pretend I never saw this film before. Two ordinary Soviet guys (of the mid 1980s) accidentally land on a distant planet in the galaxy of Kin-dza-dza. The planet is quite weird. It`s run by a race called "Chetlanye" while the other people are considered as "Pacaki" on the basis of some stupid light thingy that doesn`t really say nothing. To get home they need to use a "gravicapa" but to run that thing they need matches. Being not careful enough they lose their matches and have to find an alternate method to get home. I`m not really quite sure whether I can write the story here because it`s too obscure on paper. But on screen it looks just fine. Of course, the alien planet looks very much like the earth, of course it`s basically social satyre, but I don`t really care for that for what it is - is a really fun comedy, a good entertainment, and it`s what I ask from a film like this. The jokes are usually funny, most of them seem original, and the acting is also good. T`is a heck of a comedy!

Why do I always watch them films about music? I don`t really know the answer to that. And this was certainly a bad choice what to watch. The film is somewhat between a real motion picture and a documentary - most of the stuff really did happen but in a bit different manner. What really bother`s me is the style of music you get in this film. I`m not a particular goer for the "Joy Division", "Happy Mondays" sound but it`s what you basically get. The centre piece of the film is a TV guy named Tony Wilson, a man who owned the label that recorded Joy Division and Happy Mondays. Later he also founded the Hacienda - the most notorious nightclub in Manchester. But what`s bad is that it`s the place where rave was born. And you can guess - to I like rave? No, I don`t. And I`m not particulary interested in Mr. Wilson`s life (although Steve Coogan is a good actor). So, we get this drugs issue, and Wilson`s private life. And nothing else? Oh, yeah, we get a mess of a movie - with disturbing music, no point being made, actually - with nothing. The only positive thing I can find here is the first ten minutes - before we switch to new-wave. Punk was pretty good, I liked the way the first Sex Pistols concert was shown, but after that everything went slowly downwards. Unless you can identify yourself with this kind of music I don`t think you should watch this.

Dear God! What on earth made me watch this film made by Jim Jarmusch - the most crazy of them all American film directors? He never records anything in color and he never records anything with much action in it. And why did I watch this film? First, because it was pretty good. Of course, it wasn`t particulary full of action scenes (if you don`t count drinking coffee and smoking), but as a comedy based on sketches it worked quite good. Then there`s the actors - where else do you get both members of the "White Stripes", Roberto Benigni, Steve Buscemi, Iggy Pop, Tom Waits, Cate Blanchett, Steve Coogan and Bill Murray together in one picture? So, what`s the best sketch in this film? I personally liked the one about Elvis`s brother, the one featuring Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan was also good, but I still consider "Nothing`s wrong" as the best one. Of course, the camera work is minimalistic, so are the settings, but this film really has got something that makes it interesting, although I don`t really know why it didn`t bore me. But it didn`t! Probably that Jarmusch fellow isn`t as evil as I supposed he was!

Oh, boy, welcome to the horrific world of teen comedies! You know, the kind of stuff where you get two stupid jerks going on something like a roadtrip and encountering everything you can name on their way. There`s this Chinese dude Harold and his cool Indian pal, and they decide to go and have some burgers after smoking some weed. But it turns out that getting the right kind of cheap untasty burgers isn`t as easy as they would like it to be. So they get bullied by some assholes, they encounter a cheetah that has escaped from the zoo, their car gets stolen by a celebrity, one of them gets put into jail. Then there`s the problem of getting laid which is quite important to Kumar, and which is complicated for Harold for he loves a girl he has never dared to speak to. Of course, in the end everything turns out to be great, everyone is happy, hurrah! About the jokes: most of them are completely stupid, not in the league of "Dorm Daze" though but not much better. The plot is stupid, even for a teen comedy. The characters - not particulary interesting. I don`t really know what`s good about this film. Probably that it`s better than "Dorm Daze", but not anything else.

This film is subtitled as "The Rise and Fall of Britpop". That means we get to hear from such bands as "Oasis", "Blur", "Pulp" and "Massive Attack". Although I don`t find MA particulary britpopish. Well, whatever. The film is basically a documentary - it shows the guys from the bands talking, plays some fragments of the songs, has some videos in it. What do we learn? First, that Britpop was supported by the new Labour party (when Tony Blair was still in opposition) and that it got dumped by the politicians. Which was no particular wonder at all. What else? That Liam Gallagher is a complete idiot, but I guess that`s no surprise to anyone at all. What we don`t get is almost nothing about "The Verve" and "Radiohead" - two quite typical British bands of the 90s. The choice of music for the film is certainly superb, but the way the film is made isn`t. First, there`s close to no connection between what different people say in this film. Ok, it is chronological but there`s nothing really tying it up together - like a voice from the back of the screen saying: "And in December 1995 Liam got hit by a rubber duck." It`s pretty amateur I must say. Ok, probably it`s meant that way for the style of Britpop is quite amateur as well, but it doesn`t work well. And what also surprised me - is how can you make a film where you get so much talk about Oasis not mentioning that they are nothing more than a carbon copy of the Beatles? And to call them the best band in the world? You gotta be kidding.

Under normal conditions I probably wouldn`t watch a film like this one. But being alone in a London hotel room and having very little to do - little choice of TV, little to read and nowhere to go - I said: why not watch "Hollow Man" which was running on TV at the time. First, I must admit that I didn`t see the beginning of the film (it may have been quite a significant part in terms of minutes), but I guess, that I saw enough. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) is a scientist that becomes invisible, and being invisible he slowly goes mad and starts attacking the people who were responsible for his becoming invisible. The special effects in the film were really good, that`s for sure but everything else didn`t really live up to it (and I didn`t have expectations set low at the beginning because I had no expectations at all). What was wrong? First, I maybe missed it in the beginning but this Caine person somehow had something similar to super powers - he succeeded very vicious attacks (although his male opponent was also made of something similar to steele), he wasn`t even hurt when he had been burning for a few minutes, etc. The reasons for him becoming mad - Linda had a boyfriend but he wanted to be her boyfriend, so he started killing everyone. As you can guess Linda and the other fellow were the only two to live this mayhem. Actually there`s nothing more to add, except that the film was quite boring to watch, very predictable and a bit silly. Although it`s probably just me who doesn`t like this kind of films

Just like Haruki Murakami who`s book I finished reading before switching to Sueskind, this here is one of my favourite writers. Having already swallowed the hook of the creator of "The Perfume", "Contrabass" etc., I didn`t expect these four stories to be something around average. And they really weren`t! First there`s "The Attraction to Depth" - a story about a young female painter that goes crazy and can`t continue her work after an art critic has said that there`s not enough depth in her art which he only said not to overrate the girl. And as she died from a suicide the critic wrote that all her works showcased attraction to depth. "The battle" tells a story of chess playing in the park, where the local champion (an old drunk) is challenged by a young charistmatic opponent whom love all the spectators. And only after the victory the champion understands that he had played against a complete fool and that his win wasn`t better than a loss, he decides to give up chess. The third story "Jean Messar`s Testament" tells us about a weirdos theory that the whole earth is getting overwhelmed by shells. And then there`s the observation - how a man reads a book and sees different notices on the sides and only in the end understands that it was him who wrote all the comments, and that he doesn`t remember anything he`s ever read. Like Sueskind usually likes it to be all the stories are both very funny and very sad at the same time. And you can surely say that it`s one hell of a recipe he has found.

Since I didn`t like the first part of the film there was no real reason for me to watch the second one. But since I did watch, why can`t I write about it? First thing that strikes you in this film by Quentin Tarantino is how little it has to do with the first part in terms of style. While the first one was ultra-bloody this one is ultra-nothing-happening. To be frank, it`s a bit boring. Beatrice continues her mission of killing Bill, encountering his brother Budd and a one-eyed chick who`s name I have already forgotten. And in the end she also finds her daughter. Some of the stuff is, of course, unimaginable to happen, but I don`t really care about that. As much as I can tell this film reminds of Japanese movies which I have never seen and am not sure whether I want to see. What was bad, was the music. Tarantino was once famous for having a perfect soundtrack to his films, but in this one except for a cover version of "She`s not there" from the Zombies catalogue, there`s nothing to offer.

Once again I have read an essay. If this goes on soon I`ll be a total elitist. Since I`m not one yet, let`s hear what this essay can offer us. I don`t have any information of this Enzensberger fellow but I gotta admit that he has his points. The essay speaks of the civil war on the atomic level that happens everythere all the time. This war isn`t a social one - it`s mostly the rich against the rich, the poor against the poor, the black against the black. And the society has become even more violent than it was in the time of the Cold war, for then most of the fighting was done for some weird ideas, but now it`s done without any ideas at all. And the civil wars everywhere in the world have become even worse than they were before. Another aspect is that most people don`t feel guilty - like most Germans didn`t feel guilty for Hitler although it was them who let him get the power and it was them who let them keep it. But in the end every criminal is the victim himself - because of his poor family, violent father, bad neighborhood or something like that. A person never is considered bad as such. And that, according to Enzensberger, is wrong. And I don`t really see why I should disagree with him