Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

First, a fact: this film is a very silly romantic comedy. Sarah Jessica Parker plays a woman who`s job is to help guys who aren`t sure of themselves move out of their parents apartments (she does it for the living and is paid by the parents). She has to do it with Matthew McConaughey who isn`t that unsure and then - boom! - she falls in love with him. There`s absolutely no doubt at the beginning of their relationship that everything will be found out at one stage, then there will be a time of solitude for both of them and then - kazaam! - a happy ending. There is also a minor love story between Zooey Deschanel and Justin Bratha (their friends), one of whom is a goth and other - a computer geek. I believe that Matthew McConaughey overplays his role a little and isn`t really believable, but on the other hand it`s a happy family romantic comedy, what would you want from that - high art or something? Ok, there are some pretty lame jokes but they aren`t that offensive and overall it`s a pretty decent comedy.

There once was a Latvian writer/poet named Edvards Virza. And he wrote a really boring book describing a house in the country. There was no plot, there were no real characters, but there was a lot of nature, poetic descriptions and that kind of stuff. And now we have something lika a cover version of that book. I know, of course, that this German poet MLK didn`t know about the Latvian guy and that he probably stole the idea from someone else anyway, but there still is this resemblance. There`s a difference though - she goes a bit higher and describes a whole village. And as for the form - it`s quite interesting: it`s in the form "if I wrote a story about the village, then in the first chapter I would write about..." - something like that. And each chapter describes an exact element, which is interesting and not too traditional. Then there`s this sentence thing - there are close to no stop signs in the text, making it flow like a river. The language used is very smart and delicate, and hard to read for someone who isn`t a native German. If the amount of the book were bigger I would probably be dissapointed, but so I`m not. Although that`s not my favourite kind of literature for sure.

There probably ain`t very much I can say about a record like this one, not being a guy who lives and dies for jazz. To a humble person like me most of music this genres produces seems to be somewhat boring, and so is the case with this record. I have no doubt that Mr. Hawkins and the people he worked with there professionals of the best quality but if a record makes me sleepy there`s no way I can really enjoy it, because I don`t remember anything else after passing out on the floor. And so is the case of "Desafinado". I may be a silly person, but I don`t get it.

If there is such a thing as B literature, Robert Clausen doesn`t qualify for it. I mean there are bigger writers and smaller writers, but Robert Clausen is best viewed through a microscope. For instance, if you type "Robert Clausen" in Google, you`ll get 813 replies. Bernard Schlink gives you 21800 replies. Jenny Erpenbeck - 67900, Irmtraud Morgner - 28200. And as you can see, those aren`t the most popular German writers either. Thomas Mann can be found on more than 3 million pages, therefore you can see that Robert Clausen is very "alternative". This novel of his is actually a crime story where a man (named Lenz or Lorenz) falls in love with a prostitute and then kills the prostitute, her boyfriend and himself. The main hero (Philip) is the friend of the murderer. As a book of such genre it`s quite easy to read and mostly - very easy to forget. I have nothing against unpopular literature really, but this Clausen person seems a bit too unpopular for my taste.

Patti Smith is supposed to be the female Captain Beefheart. Then why doesn`t she have a trout mask replica but only has a radio? The opening song "Ask the Angels" is a Velvet Underground inspired catchy song. Everything else is worse than it and it isn`t as original as I expected it to be - too melodic to be avantgarde and too unlistenable to be mainstream.

This story is a part in the group of stories by Mr. Schmitt about religion. The story in question focuses on Christianity. Oscar is a boy of about ten who writes letters to God as the Lady in Pink has told him to do. This lady in pink is an old nurse at the hospital where Oscar is bound to spend his last days. He has cancer all over him and the lady in pink helps him to be able with his very close death. Unbelieving at first, very believing at last Oscar writes to God his whole life. The lady in red comes up with a plan - Oscar has to live every remaining day of his life as if it was 10 years. So he manages to live a fruitful and long life within the last ten days he`s given. He starts off with early childhood, goes through teenage years and realising love, until passing out being about 100 years old. In the notes for this book I read that E.E.S. himself couldn`t stop tears when he read the story printed, and I have very little doubt that it`s true. It`s so sad and yet so optimistic, so realistic, so fatalistic, so everything you want it to be that you don`t even need words to describe it.

This is heavy blues influenced latino rock that has about zero hooks on the entire album, the instrumental part may be not that bad to be honest, yet there`s absolutely nothing in the record that could help me remember that I listened to it in a day. The vocalist does have a rather strong voice, yet his singing makes no sense at all - it has little to do with the actual music, I don`t know the language and his singing style is boring. The blues pattern is followed quite precisely here and blues isn`t the most memorable kind of music, yet Aeroblus is certainly far from the best examples of this genre. After having listened to the record for 3 times I can`t tell any two songs of it apart, for they are all the same. God it`s dull!

Empire of the Angels is the second part of the trilogy about life and death by Bernard Werber. Since I haven`t read the first part yet, I don`t know whether this one is better or worse than the first, and I also wasn`t already familiar with the characters at the beginning of this book. The main hero, a certain Michelle Planard (if I remember his name correctly) dies at the very beginning of the book. He goes to heaven where his soul is weighted and with the help of his guardian angel (who happens to be Emile Zola) he`s updated to an angel and three people whom he should guard are given him. His main goal is to make one of the persons reach the level of 600 points (which one should achieve in order to become an angel). Michelle can help his people on their hard way through life on earth using several tools which include: 1) intuition; 2) signs; 3) dreams; 4) mediums; 5) cats. Yet people rarely want to be guided through life by an angel. The three patients of Michelle are: 1) Jacques, a French man who becomes a writer; 2) an American top model; 3) a Russian criminal named Igor. At the beginning of their journey Igor has the best starting position (in terms of points earned in previous life), yet it doesn`t go well enough for him - he`s born to a mother that wants to kill him, first he ends up in a children`s care centrum, then in a prison for minors, then in Chechnya. Meanwhile the young model evolves into a very egoistic and dull person. Michelle doesn`t follow his "patients" lives too much for he has other things to do. What I learned from this book is the recipe for a human person: 25% karma + 25% from parents + 50% free choice. This was one of the few books that I`d lately read that had a very strong influence upon me. Maybe it`s that way because I liked what the author was writing, I liked the message, I liked the idea. I have to admit that not everything in this book was marvelous and that some episodes weren`t as bright as others, yet it`s still one of the best books I`ve read this year.

Zemāk redzams teksts, ko par šo filmu rakstīju pēc tās iepriekšējās noskatīšanās pirms četriem gadiem. Paejot laikam un noskatoties to vēlreiz, pēkšņi sapratu, ka šī filma nemaz nav tik sarežģīta kā man iepriekš bija šķitis - tās sižets patiesībā ir pietiekami vienkāršs un "filozofija" saprotama. Nav tur nekādu baigāko triku un baigāko teoriju (raugoties uz to ar šodienas acīm), un vienlaikus šī filma nav arī tik ģeniāla, par kādu biju to iepriekš uzskatījis. Jā, tā ir laba, jā, tā ir interesanta, bet tās pārcilvēciskā kino sajūtas, ko tā man radīja iepriekš, tagad vairs nav.

Having already read the novel behind the theatre performance, my expectations to it were quite high. Will the cast of my favourite Latvian theatre be able to recapture the spirit of Chesterton`s most ambitious work? Since the novel is already on this factoid, I`m not gonna go into details about the story. Let`s better discuss the performance as such. Decorations: close to none, since it`s quite complicated to recapture all the different locations and different objects on the stage there was an absolute minimum of everything - a few chairs, some piece of cloth on the floor that was sometimes elevated to be the sea or something like that, a table without legs that must be held by actors - and an image projector: that`s it. The acting was superb. No major changes were made in the plot (unlike what you usually see on Latvian stages). But one flaw was there - the performance went on for almost four hours and it was a bit too much, I guess cutting a few chase scenes would have been a good idea, thus the performance isn`t rated as high as it might have been.