Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

This film confused me a bit. I found its title on the list of ten most funny British comedies. And I also found out that IMDB doesn`t consider this film to have anything to do with comedy but calls it a thriller. So I think to myself - why not watch this film? And I watched it. It turned out to be a thriller with some elements of a black comedy in it. Alex (played by Ewan McGregor), Juliet and Dave are looking for a new flatmate. They organise some sort of casting and lots of different are being mocked by the trio. Finally they decide to choose a supposedly nice writer, who happens to die in the apartment leaving a suitcase full of money behind. So our heroes decide to get rid of the body and keep the money. But they don`t know that a duo of killers is on the search for the dead man and that they kill everyone on their way. Because of him having to remove the legs and hands of the corpse Dave goes a bit crazy and becomes overprotective, whilst the other two people want to get away from him. In the end after having killed the killers Dave wants to get away with the money alone and stabs Alex, Juliet meanwhile kills Dave. So she gets away with the suitcase but not with the money. The ending is a bit ambigious - you can`t be sure whether Alex is dead or still living - he lies on the floor and is smiling and even talking a bit but nobody notices him. I did like this film, although it was no comedy for sure, but it was dark, it was dreary and it was daring.

A truly crazy book. That is the least realistic piece of Soviet literature I`ve read in my entire life. The author must have been on some weird communist drugs when he wrote that. I don`t say that this is a communist book, by no means it is anything like that but it is certainly much too crazy for me to understand it. The book seems to be going in 10 directions at the same time, not really wanting to say anything. I may be a little too old fashioned, but that`s not the kind of literature that I can appreciate - even "Ulysses" made more sense. Probably, had I taken my time and read it three times over again, I might have understood more. But I`m too lazy for that.

You know what, this is another one of the films directed by a former Monty Python - although it isn`t Terry Gilliam but his namesake Terry Jones who directed this piece of cinema here. And what else - John Cleese can be seen here as well as in the Gilliam flick. What I don`t understand about the film is why is "Time bandits" rated higher than this film here? To be honest, I liked it. And why not? Erik is a viking who doesn`t like raping, nor does he really enjoy pillaging and killing, and he decides to go along with his mates to Valhalla and ask the gods to stop all this nonsense. There`s a coward, a sly blacksmith, a man who must be berserk, father of the pseudo-berserk man, a christian priest and I guess some other members of the crew going on this quest. At some points the film gets quite funny while unlike `Time bandits` it does have it`s idea and isn`t entirely a comedy as one could think. I liked John Cleese once again, so was Terry Jones` character worth a good laugh. And the gods...

This is one of the cases when I watched a film just because I had nothing better to do. It was late in the evening on Saturday night and my wife (what a silly word to describe my girlfriend!) was asleep in a hotel room not far from the centre of Berlin, but I just didn`t feel like sleeping. I hadn`t thought of taking a book along, so I started watching this silly film that I had already seen in 2003 when it was still new. Actually I thought the film was a bit older but that doesn`t really matter. Basically it`s nothing more but a remake of the first part. A huge accident has to happen at the beginning of the film but one of the people involved saves the rest from dying, thus damaging the death`s plan. So death tries to get back at all those people for they already are on the list. The most interesting thing about this film is the various deaths of characters, mostly caused by household appliances. As for the rest - who gives a damn about the story in a film like this - it`s probably the accident death equivalent to a porn movie. As for the deaths they are planned masterfully, as for the rest - it`s a typical forgettable film that noone should care about.

The subject of what Pilate thought and did to Jesus has been used in lots of different books, and as for itself isn`t anything unmentioned before. But I already knew before this book that E.M.Schmitt is capable of creating very convincing stories. What I didn`t expect from this book was that it wasn`t a comedy or a farce based upon the birth of Christianity. It turned out that this book had two parts - Jesus tells about his own life until the last Thursday in the gardens, and after that the story is taken over by Pilate. The first thing that comes to mind about Jesus according to Schmitt is that he is loveable - much more than Jesus of Bible - he himself doesn`t have the faith to believe that he could be the Messiah. His closest friend is Judas, who`m Jesus asks to give him up to the law trying to save the rest of his people. To achieve that Jesus uses the same words that he does in the Bible - that`s one interesting thing that Jesus quite often in this book says what he says in the Bible but Schmitt brings a whole different meaning to those words. Pilate is also very similar to the biblical one - but it`s interesting to follow how he finds different explanations for the dissapearance of Jesus`s body, using the common logic but logic fails him every time. I guess, if the Bible was anything like this gospel, I would be much more of a Christian than I am now.

A man returns from a war and stays at a woman`s place. He is a bit mentally disturbed. She is a doctor herself and tries to help him. They stay together. Boring.

A young fellow goes to a boarding school. Some things happen to him, some - to others. The novel contains lots of stories that aren`t too closely related. Several of them are memorable, most are not.

What do you want to tell me? Nothing. A title similar to this one was added to most of the pieces of art at this exhibition. If it was only that, I`d say, it ain`t so bad. But there was also some crazy stuff about visions and something that goes with them. Gray forms on huge black sheets, disturbing sounds, video of tomography and a few quite bloody photos - that`s what I saw. I really don`t want to taste the soup although it is not that sour as it might seem. Yeah, and I`ve never been to something like this before.

This is a film based on the rock opera "Tommy" by the Who. The songs are rerecorded especially for the film with the cast doing the singing in a broadwayish manner. Tommy`s father doesn`t come back from WW2 and his mother finds herself a brand new lover. When dad unexpectedly does come back, the lover kills him with a candlestick (if I remember it correctly that it was a "Cluedo" weapon he used). Anyway, Tommy who`s aged about four or five sees that in the front of his very eyes and after that he becomes deaf, dumb and blind. He grows up like that, nobody being able to cure him, he`s tortured by a cousin of his, a perverted uncle named Ernie (played by Keith Moon - the deceased Who drummer) "fiddles about", but there`s one thing Tommy can do - and that is playing pinball. Which is not the most typical thing for a person that doesn`t really know what pinball is all about. And he also likes starring at his own reflection in the mirror. And then he gets his vision, hearing and talking back, and becomes some sort of a preacher. What`s the film like - it`s basically just a long video for the music, and nothing more. Roger Daltrey - the singer of the band is kinda ok as Tommy, but both his Mom and Dad make 2 are not only lousy actors, but crappy singers as well. Still the music is good, altough it`s a bit musicalised which I don`t really appreciate. By the way, Elton John is the pinball wizard, while Eric Clapton simply does a song.

A documentary about a tour the Rolling Stones did in the United States. The tour ended with a free concert for something like 300000 people which had the famous incident with the bikers "Hell`s Angels". Basically it was a stupid idea, and it basically is a stupid film. Why on earth would you have on a 90 minutes film about a concert where the Stones, Jefferson Airplane, the Flying Burrito Brothers and the Grateful Dead played on the same stage have only circa 45 minutes of music and no sign of the Dead on stage whatsoever? Ok, there was this violence part, that was interesting, but why would I need to see a lot of crap about how and why somebody made the Stones change the place of the concert, and what problems arose at any moment? Could the film makers have at least got some replies from the Stones why the hired those Hell`s Angels to be the safe guards at the concert? If they could, they did not do that. All they did was make a visually interesting piece of film - I mean there are many masterfuly filmed scenes, but there`s very little content behind it. There`s something like 6 songs done by the Stones, one by Tina Turner, one by Jefferson Airplane which ends with a fight, and one by the Burrito Brothers. The rest was just crap.