Kazhes pierakstu burtnīca

Nebiju lasījis nevienu grāmatu krieviski kopš šī gada februāra, un arī tagad man bija diezgan grūti saņemties kaut ko lasīt šajā valodā. Vienlaikus Boriss Akuņins ir viens no tiem krievu literātiem, par kuriem nav šaubu, kurā pusē viņi ir. Ne velti viņš putinzemi pameta 2014. gadā, un arī tagad galīgi neslēpj savu viedokli par to, ar ko nodarbojas viņa dzimtene. Jāatzīst, ka man pat šobrīd nav skaidrs - cik daudz vispār ir tādu krievu rakstnieku, kuru darbi man šķiet pieņemami. No dzīvajiem un man zināmajiem laikam vēl tikai Vladimirs Sorokins, Ludmila Uļicka un Viktors Šenderovičs atbilst šim kritērijam.

Dena Simonsa diloģija "Iliona/Olimps" ir viens no vērienīgākajiem mūsdienu zinātniskās fantastikas darbiem, kas itin pamatīgi izkāpj no konkrētā žanra rāmjiem dažādos negaidītos virzienos. Pagaidām esmu izlasījis tikai pirmo diloģijas daļu un, tā kā tā vien ir septiņsimt lappušu apjomā, pirms otrās domāju ieturēt nelielu pauzi, taču tā šķiet esam gana patstāvīga vērtība, lai varētu par to izteikties, nezinot, kas notiks tālāk.

Šī jau bija otrā Sokurova filma, ko skatījāmies grāmatas rekomendāciju dēļ - un joprojām tā nav viena no tām, kuru dēļ vispār man šī režisora vārds ir zināms - tā vismaz šķiet, ka vienkāršās tautas vidū (kurai sevi, protams, pieskaitu) Sokurova vārds visvairāk saistās ar biogrāfiskajām drāmām par Hitleru un Ļeņinu, tikām "Tēvs un dēls" galīgi nav biogrāfisks stāsts, kur starp Ādolfu un Iļjiču tiktu izveidota ģimeniska saite.

"- No kurienes viņš te uzradās?" - "Atbrauca." Tā Andreja Zvjaginceva režijas debijā bērniem mamma izskaidro nekad neredzētā tēva atgriešanos. Abi puikas: Andrejs un Ivans līdz šim itin labi bija iztikuši arī Latvijā tradicionālajā ģimenes modelī - ar mammu un vecmāmiņu, bet pēkšņi parādās tētis, kas dēlus jau nākamajā dienā ņems līdzi braucienā uz ūdenskritumu un makšķerēt.

Gasa van Santa "Zilonis" ir visai īpatnēja filma par tēmu "apšaudes amerikāņu skolās", kas neseko nevienai no divām populārākajām pieejām šim jautājumam. Standarta liberālais variants kā izskaidrot Kolumbainas vidusskolas slaktiņu (piem., Maikla Mūra "Bowling for Columbine") ir vainot Amerikas ieroču politiku, sociālo nevienlīdzību, skolas vadības neinteresētību apcelšanas skolā apkarošanā un padarīt slepkavas drīzāk par sistēmas upuriem (vainīga ir slimā sabiedrība, kas padara šos cilvēkus slimus). Konservatīvā pozīcija tikām ir novelt atbildību uz vardarbīgajām datorspēlēm, kino un mūziku (ja Džo nebūtu klausījies Merilinu Mensonu, viņš nebūtu Internetā iegādājies kaujas ieročus un devies uz skolas kafejnīcu). "Zilonis" īsti necenšas meklēt iemeslus un izskaidrot notiekošo, filma nav nedz moralizējoša, nedz audzinoša. Tā ataino dažādu skolēnu gaitas neilgi pirms asinspirts sākuma un pašu asinspirti. Nekādas detalizētas tēlu attīstības un psiholoģijas pamatskolai.

Šī filma ir paradokss, kas radies uz cita vēsturiska paradoksa pamatiem. Cik daudz tu zini filmas, kam pamatā ir deviņus gadus vecas meitenes rakstīts romāns? Es, protams, nenoliedzu brīnumbērnu pastāvēšanu, taču tur vienmēr ir jāsaglabā sava deva skepses. Ir plaši zināmi stāsti par to, kā brīnumbērns Mocarts jau piecu gadu vecumā bija klavierspēles virtuozs un savu pirmo simfoniju viņš sacerēja, būdams astoņgadīgs puņķutapa, taču jāņem vērā, ka viņa agrīno darbu reputācija nav tāda, ka tie mūsdienās piedzīvotu daudz atskaņojumu un savus izcilākos meistardarbus viņš radīja jau kā pieaudzis cilvēks. Un Deizija Ešforde pilnīgi noteikti nebija Mocarts brunčos.

Dāņu režisora Kristofera Bē pilnmetrāžas debija viņam varbūt neatnesa tādu pasaules slavu un bagātību, lai viņš varētu visu atlikušo mūžu pavadīt Maiami pludmalē krūtīm apdāvinātu meiteņu sabiedrībā (vai zēnu - neesmu interesējies par šo viņa personības aspektu), taču līdzās "Zelta kamerai" par labāko debiju Kannu kinofestivālā tā tika iekļauta arī Rietumas/Naumaņa grāmatā ar 365 dienas filmām. Un - pamatoti.

Šī grāmata nav jaunākā "Galaktikas ceļveža stopētājiem" daļa. Tāda arī pastāv, bet lasījis to neesmu. Jā, es zinu, ka Duglass Adamss ir miris un ka jaunākajai daļai ir cits autors, tas arī mani mazliet biedē. Plus esmu aizmirsis, par ko bija piektā daļa, vajadzētu pārlasīt. Un vispār pareizi būtu pārlasīt pirmās piecas un tikai tad ķerties pie sestās. Bet tas nav šajā brīdī svarīgi, jo rakstu par kādu citu grāmatu.

Savulaik man "Belle and Sebastian" asociējās ar "Sin with Sebastian". Interesanti, ka šī skotu grupa patiešām radās jau pēc tam, kad vācu Sebastians bija aicinājis tevi gulēt ar viņu. Bet mūzikas ziņā nekādas dižās līdzības starp šiem izpildītājiem nav. Turklāt B&S nosaukums ir nācis no sešdesmito gadu franču bērnu grāmatas par puiku un viņa suni, grēkošana līdz ar to šeit galīgi nebūs tēmā.

Biju mazliet pārsteigts, ka šo relatīvi neseno Vudija Alena filmu līdz šim nebiju noskatījies, taču savs pamatojums tam acīmredzot bija. Pirmkārt, tajā galvenajā lomā ir Džeisons Bigss, kas popularitāti ieguva kā "Amerikāņu pīrāga" varonis. Otrkārt, kritiķu acīs šī ir visu laiku sliktākā Alena filma. Treškārt, arī skatītāji par to nebija sajūsmā - komerciāli tā bija izgāšanās. Taču vai tas obligāti garantētu, ka man šī filma nepatiks? Lasi tālāk, un uzzināsi pareizo atbildi!

"Priekšpilsētu leģendas" Rīgā būs redzamas pavisam drīz - kopā ar "Reel Big Fish" šī grupa uzstāsies Palladiumā, un man šķita, ka būtu korekti, ja vismaz pavirši es iepazītos arī ar mazāk zināmās no divām ciemos braucošajām amerikāņu grupām daiļradi. Nezinu, vai tas bija gudri darīts.

Nezinu, kā tas sagadījās, ka mēs ar Lieni nebijām noskatījušies šo Džonija Depa filmu - viņa ir fane, bet es parasti neprotestēju, jo vismaz agrākos gados Deps parasti piedalījās labās filmās (pirms viņš kļuva par pastāvīgu Karību jūras pirātu un kamēr Tims Bērtons uzņēma jēdzīgas kvalitātes kino). Tiesa, Roberts Rodrigezs nav viens no tiem režisoriem, kura vārds man automātiski asociējas ar kaut ko diži labu - līdzīgi kā Kventins Tarantino, Rodrigezs allaž ir spēlējies ar B klases kino elementiem, taču atšķirībā no Tarantino Rodrigezs ne reizes nav radījis kādu tik episku stāstu, lai kičs to tikai padarītu labāku.

Ziemeļvalstu apceļošanas braucienā šis bija viens no biežāk skanējušajiem ierakstiem. Protams, tu varētu teikt, ka nav pareizākais veids, kā iepazīt Skyforger, klausoties viņu vienīgo tīrās folkmūzikas ierakstu, kurā nav ne miņas no pagānu metāla elementiem. Bet vai man būtu tik svarīgi izdabāt tev? Turklāt normālos apstākļos folkmūzika man ir aptuveni tikpat sveša kā pagānu metāls.

Normālos apstākļos es nemēdzu lasīt grāmatas par folkloru, arī par lībiešu folkloru ne. Taču sanāca tā, ka Liene bibliotēkā paņēma veselas trīs grāmatas par lībiešiem (meklējot atbildes uz jautājumiem dažiem slēpņiem), un es ņēmu un vienu no šīm grāmatām izlasīju - grāmatu par lībiešu folkloru.

"Blur" septītais un līdz šai baltai dienai pēdējais studijas ieraksts mēģina rast atbildi uz jautājumu - vai iespējama šīs grupas pastāvēšana bez Greima Koksona līdzdalības. Un tā vien šķiet, ka atbilde ir - ne visai. Tas nenozīmē varbūt uzreiz, ka Koksons bija vienīgais radošais šīs grupas dalībnieks un ka bez viņa grupa pārvērtās par kaku. Bet vienlaikus nav noliedzami, ka "Think Tank" jau pavisam neizklausās pēc tādas mūzikas, kas normāli asociējas ar "Blur". Grupas mūzika šeit ir kļuvusi visnotaļ eksperimentāla un nepopsīga, gandrīz pilnībā atsakoties no jebkādiem hooks un man vismaz ir grūti saprast, kā šis albums britu čārtos aizsniedzās līdz pirmajai vietai - tas ir pārāk alternatīvs, lai varētu būt populārs. Cik tajā ir dziesmu, kas varētu pretendēt uz iekļūšanu Blur labāko skaņdarbu izlasē? Varbūt "Out of Time" (Albārna dziedājums ir ļoti patīkams, bet apakšā tam ir visai šķidra melodija). Bet citādi ieraksts tiešām nav slikts, bet manā izpratnē tas ir pārāk neemocionāls un dīvains dīvainuma pēc. Protams, forši ka Albarns negrib apstāties, bet allaž iet uz priekšu, eksperimentē un variē ar savu mūziku, bet ne vienmēr jaunais ir labāks par veco. Un šķiet, ka ar šo ierakstu bija arī tā, ka kritika par to bija lielā neizpratnē - atradās gan bariem slavinātāju, kas apgalvoja, ka tas esot teju labākais, ko "Blur" jebkad radījuši, gan skeptiķu, kas teica, ka karalis ir kails un ka šādu ceļu Albarns izvēlējies vien tāpēc, ka viņš ir pazaudējis savu lipīgas popmūzikas radīšanas mūzu. Bet fakts paliek fakts - lipīgu ģitāras melodiju šajā ierakstā nav, un tas ir draņķīgi.

No visām Dienvidamerikas lielajām valstīm tikai Bolīvija man sagādāja rūpes un raizes, meklējot kādu šajā valstī tapušu filmu. Biju jau gatavs skatīties American Visa spāņu valodā bez subtitriem (diezgan liels hardcore, lai gan filma pēc aprakstiem šķiet diezgan interesanta), kad izrādījās, ka "Sexual Dependency" ir iespējams atrast ar krievisku tulkojumu. Šāda pieeja gan tradicionāli nav manā gaumē, bet tomēr tas ir labāks variants, nekā skatities filmu sev pilnīgi nesaprotamā valodā. Krievu Interneta lapās šī filma tiek dēvēta par pieskaitāmu "art house" kino, bet, manuprāt, tās ir pupu mizas un nevis arthouse.

Kur tie gadi, kad pirmo reizi dzirdēju "Coin Operated Boy", kuru kaut kur mp3 formātā bija izracis Ziņģis. Bail pat padomāt, cik daudz šajā laikā ir mainījies, un it īpaši - cik ļoti ir mainījusies pasaule man apkārt. Par to, ka es šajos gados būtu diži pieaudzis, nobriedis un kļuvis vērtīgs sabiedrības loceklis, es laikam nebūtu pārliecināts, bet es ļoti šaubos, ka Ziņģis vēl joprojām mēdz klausīties dziesmas par Coin operated boys.

Neticami, bet fakts - 2003.gadā "Deep Purple" izdevās ierakstīt albumu, kas par spīti jebkādas intereses trūkumam no kritiķu un ierakstu pircēju puses bija sasodīti labs. Jaunajā tūkstošgadē grupa iesoļoja bez viena no saviem nozīmīgākajiem dalībniekiem - Džons Lords no grupas aizgāja neilgi pirms tās koncerta Rīgā 2001.gadā (kas, protams, bija aplauziens tādiem šīs grupas cienītājiem kā man, kas bija uz šo koncertu), bet viņa vietu ieņēma Don Airey, kas savas muzikālās karjeras laikā bija izvandījies pa veselu kaudzi visdažādāko ansambļu - "Babe Ruth", "Colosseum II", Gary Moore grupā, "Black Sabbath", "Rainbow", "MSG", "Thin Lizzy", "Jethro Tull", "Whitesnake", "Judas Priest", UFO, Brian May grupā, u.t.t. Parasti, ja kāds mūziķis spēlē katru gadu citā ansamblī, tas neliek domāt, ka viņš būtu kaut kas super grandiozs, drīzāk - ka viņam labi patīk tusēt. Un pilnīgi iespējams, ka tā bija arī ar Don Airey.

"Adam`s Apples" iespaidā noskatījāmies vēl vienu Andersa Tomasa Jensena filmu. Gaidījis noteikti no tās biju ko vairāk - tas pats režisors, lielā mērā - tie paši aktieri, atkal jau - melnā komēdija, un tomēr šī filma man ne tuvu negāja pie sirds tik labi kā "Ādama āboli". Sižetiski filma ir ļoti līdzīga "Svīnijam Todam" - tajā daudz laika tiek veltīts cilvēka gaļas izmantošanai uzturā, vienīgi šī filma sākas kā pilnīgi reālistisks stāsts, un patiesībā ari visa epopeja ar to, kā divi miesnieki sāk savā skārnī vistas gaļas vietā tirgot cilvēka gaļu, ir daudz reālistiskāka un tradicionālā izpratnē - ticamāka. Filmas varoņi ir divi draugi, kuri izlemj atvērt paši savu skārni, nevis strādat pie līdzšinējā saimnieka, kas viņus abus visu laiku pazemojis. Sākumā viņiem nekas nevedas, taču viss sāk mainīties, kad viens no viņiem klientam ir pārdevis lielu daudzumu cilvēka filejas. Sākotnēji viņš neko tādu nav plānojis darīt, bet traģiska nelaimes gadijuma dēļ viņš iepriekšējā vakarā bija saldētavā ieslēdzis elketriķi, atradis to no rīta mirušu un klientam satraukumā, nespējot atrast kādu labāku gaļu, pārdevis fileju no elektriķa kājas. Viss jau būtu nekas, ja neizrāditos, ka visiem šī gaļa ļoti garšo, un tā pamazām sviedru Svends (tā sauc šo varoni) sāk kļūt par slepkavniecisku maniaku, kurš izmanto katru iespēju ievilināt kādu cilvēku saldētavā. Tikām viņa partneris Bjarne prinicipā ir pret šādu pieeju, taču viņam netrūkst savu problēmu, ieskaitot garīgi atpalikušu dviņū brāli, kas nupat iznācis no slimnīcas, kur septiņus gadus pavadījis komā.

Arvien vairāk klausoties Muse, man jāatzīst, ka man šī grupa ļoti patīk, lai arī tai ir pāris acīmredzami trūkumi. Sāksim ar slikto - šķiet, ka Belamijs un ieročnesēji sevi iedomājas esam par daudz viedākiem nekā viņi patiesībā ir. Līdz ar to viņu mūzika, viņu vēstījumi un viss saistībā ar šo grupu ir tik grandiozs un uzpūsts, ka reizēm gribas pat saskatīt līdzību starp viņiem un "The Darkness". Proti, bieži šķiet, ka viņi paši sevi neuzskata par rokmūziķiem, bet gan par 21.gadsimta praviešiem. To varētu nosaukt par Rodžera Votersa sindromu - tikai vēl vairāk hipertrofētu nekā pašam Votersam. Taču atšķirībā no ierakstiem, kuros Voterss atklāj savu pasaules mācītāja dabu, Muse vismaz neaizmirst par vienu lietu - ka ar gudrām runām nepietiek, vajag arī labu mūziku. Un tās trūkuma "Muse" albumos nav. Ja atmestu visu viņu pseidofilosofiju, sazvērestības teorijas un aicinājumus cilvēkiem pārņemt varu, bet pieņemtu, ka "Muse" dzied kā tas normālām grupām piedienas par pupiem un alu, tad viņu dziesmas tāpat varētu klausīties. Un patiesībā šī albuma slavenākā dziesma - "Time is running out" pilnīgi iespējams, ka tiešām ir par pupiem. Protams, te ir divi populārie viedokļi - pupi vai valdība, bet es laikam labprātāk izvēlēšos pirmo variantu. Man it kā patīk, ja rokmūzika ir inteliģenta, un Muse nebūtu tā grupa, kurai es pārmestu stulbumu, bet vienlaikus man patiešām šķiet, ka viņi ir pārāk... lieli... Proti, man patīk viņu dziesmas un man varbūt pat patīk tas, ko viņi ar savām dziesmām pasaka, bet vienlaikus man nepatīk viņu pārmērīgā nopietnība. Un līdz ar to reizēm man rodas sajūta, ka Muse ir tikai tādi sava laikmeta "Queen" - ansamblis, kuram patiesībā nav ne mazākās nojēgas par to, "what`s really happening", bet kas tāpat uzdodas par Delfu orākuliem. Un līdz ar to, piem., "Falling away with you" ievads man pārmērīgi atgādina kaut ko no banālaākajiem Queen gabaliem, kaut vai "Is this the world we created". Un patiesībā šis albums man arī patīk nedaudz mazāk kā tā priekšgājējs - es gan esmu daudz kur dzirdējis, ka katrs nākamais "Muse" albums esot labāks par iepriekšējo (tai skaitā pat "The Resistance"!), bet šajā jautājumā atļaušos nepiekrist - "Simetrija" man patīk labāk nekā šis ripulis, manai gaumei tas jau ir pārmērīgi nopietns.

Es tiešām gribētu saprast, kālab tas ir tā, ka Svešvalodu bibliotēkā no Terija Pretčeta grāmatām ir pieejamas tikai tās, kuras ir primāri paredzētas gados jaunākai auditorijai. Man nav, protams, nekādu iebildumu pret bērnu grāmatām, bet vienlaikus - kur tad paliek pieaugušie? Jā, es zinu, ka tas pats "The Wee Free Men" nav 100% bērnu grāmata, un tomēr - ja man kā vienkāršam lasītājam ir vēlme iepazīt Pretčeta daiļradi kaut cik daudzpusīgi, diez vai labs viņa divu grāmatu komplekts būtu šī un "The Amazing Maurice". Vai ne tā?

Kad "The Darkness" parādījās pie populārās mūzikas apvāršņiem 21.gadsimta sākumā, diez vai kāds paredzēja šai grupai ilgu mūžu un vietu rokmūzikas panteonā. Nenoliegsim, ka šī tomēr lielā mērā bija vairāk parodijgrupa un nevis īsts rokmūzikas ansamblis - Džastins Hokinss un viņa pavadošais ansamblis gan savu tēlu, gan mūziku veidoja kā septiņdesmito gadu arena rock parodiju un droši vien viņi savā laikā bija labākā alternatīva cilvēkiem, kas bija noilgojušies pēc laikiem, kad koncertos varēja aplūkot Frediju Merkūriju visā godībā. Un, manuprāt, Hokinss būtu bijis ideālais aizstājējs Merkūrijam, kad Queen apvienojās, jo viņam ir daudz labāk piemērota balss "Queen" klasisko eposu izpildīšanai nekā daudzu nemīlētajam Polam Rodžersam. Un, kā jau varēja gaidīt - The Darkness patiešām izjuka pēc divu albumu ierakstīšanas, jo joks ir labs tikai tik ilgi, kamēr tas ir svaigs.

Šo filmu iesākām skatīties pirms pāris mēnešiem, bet pēc dažām minūtēm atmetām tai ar roku, konstatējot, ka filmai nebija pieejami kvalitatīvi subtitri. Šo mēnešu laikā nekas nebija mainījies - no subtitriem joprojām nebija nekādas jēgas (tie jau pēc pirmās minūtes bija pamatigi nobīdījušies no filmas tempa un man bija slinkums jebko darīt lietas labā), tāpēc skatījāmies šo filmu bez tiem. Faktiski jau tas arī nebija tik ļoti nepieciešams, jo filma nav pārmērigi grūti uztverama. Ja kas - lai arī tā ir Austrālijas kino produkts, par grūti saprotamiem akcentiem uztraukties nevajadzētu, jo visi filmas varoņi runā iespējami vienkāršā un skaidrā angļu valodā. Es, protams, nesaku, ka tas būtu uzreiz filmai kāds grandiozs pluss, bet vismaz ar tās uztveršanu problēmu nav.

Lasot aprakstus tam, cik "Bon Voyage" ir lieliska filma, es lielā mērā jūtu kaunu par sevi un to, ka to kaut kā nespēju saskatīt. Protams, daļēji pie vainas varētu būt tas, ka vienīgie pieejamie šīs filmas subtitri bija vienkārši nereāli kļūdaini - pat ne tādi, kas būtu tulkoti no franču valodas, bet gan, kā man šķita, tādi, ko rakstījis cilvēks, kas nezina īsti labi nedz franču, nedz angļu valodu. Kas, protams, nenāca par labu manām spējām uztvert filmu. Plus vēl skatījos to diezgan pavēlu, kas nozīmē, ka man nāca arī miegs, vēl viens ne super labs filmas faktors.

Iespējams, vakardienas nogale nebija īstais laiks, lai skatītos vienalga kādu filmu. Kad nežēlīgi sāp galva un nepieciešamas vairākas minūtes, lai saņemtos piecelties no gultas un piespraust laptopu pie elektrības, skatīties filmu nav īpaši viegli. No otras puses - kaut ko taču darīt vajag, nevaru taču es 14 stundas vienkārši novalstīties pa gultu. Tāpēc no visām uz Slovākiju līdzi paņemtajām filmām man vislabāk piemērotā šķita "Bright Young Things". Pirmkārt, filma ir angļu valodā un ja es uz brīdi aizveru acis, tāpat varu saprast notiekošo. Otrkārt, esmu lasījis Ivlina Vo romānu "Grēcīgā miesa", pēc kura motīviem tapusi filma, līdz ar to gana labi esmu pazīstams ar saturu, kas atkal jau atļauj vieglāk uztvert šo filmu.

Šis ir viens no Makkola Smita romāniem, kas ietilpst viņa "The No. 1 Ladies` Detective Agency" sērijā, taču man par zināmu pārsteigumu, izradījās, ka šī grāmata nemaz nav detektīvromāns. Nezinu, vai tas šajā gadījumā ir pluss vai nē, bet autoram, šķiet, detektīvtēma labākajā gadījumā ir otrā plāna līnija, kamēr centrā ir... grūti pateikt, kas tieši. Faktiski tas ir visai sadzīvisks un naivs romāns, kas stāsta par dzīvi Botsvanā (tāpat kā visi citi šīs sērijas romāni, no kuriem gan nevienu lasījis neesmu) un kura centrā ir sieviete, kas vada detektīvaģentūru un viņas saderinātais - pilsētas labākais automehāniķis. Kaut kas līdzīgs detektīvsižetam te ir - sievieti noalgo viena bagāta sieviete, lai grāmatas varone noskaidrotu, kuri no četriem šīs sievietes potenciālajiem preciniekiem dzenas pēc viņas naudas un kurus viņa interesē kā sieviete. Uzreiz varu pateikt, ka grāmatas gaitā varone līdz galam atbildi uz šo jautājumu neatradīs, bet tas arī nemaz nebūs vajadzīgs. Līdzās lādzīgajam un ļoti naivajam viņas līgavainim (kurš gan nespēj sadūšūties ieplānot konkrētu datumu abu kāzām) grāmatas varoņu vidū ir divi viņa palīgi - topošie mehāniķi, kuri neko no sava aroda nejēdz un kuri nespēj īsti iemīlēt automašīnas, kā to dara viņu priekšnieks, detektīvaģentūras sekretāre, kas pārvācas uz prestižāku pilsētas rajonu, kāda bāreņu nama vadītāja un vēl šādi tādi ļaudis. Neviens no viņiem man, šo grāmatu lasot, nešķita kaut drusciņ reāls un ticams, jo visa grāmata lasās kā tāda viena liela pasaka, ko es diez vai tai ieskaitīšu kā plusu. Nē, es neteiktu, ka tā būtu bijusi katastrofāli slikta, bet tiešām - padumja un ne pārāk saistoša, varbūt kaut ko tādu var lasīt, ja tev ir gadījusies nepieciešamība vairākas stundas dirnēt uz vietas un negribas īsti piepūlēt smadzenes, bet īsti jēgas no šādas lasīšanas nav, ja nu tikai lai bišķi uzturētu pie dzīvības savas angļu valodas zināšanas.

Ar "Elephant" baltās svītras nostiprināja iepriekšējos ierakstos iegūto popularitāti un gluži iespējams, ka tā bija viņu slavas spožāka stunda. Vai tas ir arī šīs grupas labākais albums? Grūti atbildēt viennozīmīgi. Kādreiz man šis ieraksts šķita labs tikai un vienīgi "Seven Nation Army" dēļ. Tagad tā vairs nav, iespējams, ka tā pat nav šī ieraksta labākā dziesma. Jā, pirmajā klausīšanās reizē tā aizgrābj visvairāk, bet ar laiku tu sāc novērtēt arī "The Hardest Button to Button" stingro līniju, emocionālo kaveru "I Just Don`t Know What to Do with Myself", Megas Vaitas vokāla stundu dziesmā "In the cold, cold night" (domājams - līdz šim labākā White Stripes dziesma, kurā dzied Mega un, protams, "Ball and Biscuit". Šis ir diezgan smags, diezgan daudzveidīgs un ļoti saistošs ieraksts, kurš gan varbūt ne tik labi aizķer pirmajā klausīšanās reizē. Ir te arī daži ne tik veiksmīgi skaņdarbi - it īpaši gribētos pasūdzēties par "Little Acorns", bet ieraksts kā vesels vienums ir lielisks un atkal jau varu teikt, ka no relatīvi jaunās paaudzes mūziķiem manās acīs Vaitam nav konkurentu.

"Intermission" ir kārtējā Īrijas kino industrijas filma, kas sasniegusi manas acis un ausis. Džonam Kraulijam šajā filmā izdevies sapulcēt vairākus visnotaļ labi zināmus aktierus - te ir gan Kolins Ferels, gan Kiliāns Mērfijs, gan Šērlija Hendersone (redzēta kā raudošā Myrtle Harija Potera filmās), gan Kellija Makdonalda, gan Kolms Mīnijs (zināms man no "Three and Out"). Saturiski filma ir tāda kā īru variācija par "Pulp Fiction" - ar vairākām sižeta līnijām, bandītiskiem personāžiem un negaidītiem gājieniem. Droši vien man nebūtu vērts pūlēties atstāstīt filmas sižetu, jo tas aprakstu darītu nereāli garu un nepārskatāmu. Iezīmēšu vienīgi dažas centrālās līnijas - Mērfija varonis ir izšķīries ar savu draudzeni pats savas neizlēmības dēļ, bet tagad, kad viņai ir cits, viņš grib viņu dabūt atpakaļ, līdz ar to viņš piekrīt bandīta (Ferels) un darbu zaudējuša autobusa šofera plānam paņemt Mērfija bijušo draudzeni par ķīlnieci, lai viņas bagātais draugs samaksātu izpirkuma maksu. Paraleli mēs iepazīstam brutālu un paštaisnu policistu (Mīnijs), kuram pastāvīgi nepieciešams apliecināties.

Jāatzīst, ka mani mēģinājumi iepazīt latviešu modernās literatūras aktualitātes visbiežāk sagādā tikai nepatīkamus pārsteigumus. No šogad lasītajām latviešu autoru grāmatām pozitīvs iespaids radies vien par dažām Bankovska grāmatām, kā arī par "Gūtenmorgenu", kamēr vairums lasīto grāmatu labākajā gadījumā var pretendēt uz statusu "izlasīju-aizmirsu".

Pagājuši jau seši gadi kopš pēdējā King Crimson albuma iznākšanas, un patlaban nekas neliecina, ka grupa varētu saviem klausītājiem pasniegt jaunus šedevrus. Labi, varbūt arī liecina - tās pastāvēšanas gados arī iepriekš ir bijušas ilgas pauzes un sastāva maiņas, bet allaž Robertam Fripam ir izdevies sapulcināt sev jaunus sekotājus un atdzīvināt grupu jaunās skaņās. Arī pēdējos gados šādas tādas aktivitātes no šīs apvienības puses ir manītas, taču diemžēl tās nav rezultējušās nedz kādas tūres, nedz jauna studijas albuma formā. Kā jau lirisks un naivs jaunietis, es, protams, sapņotu par jubilejas tūri, kurā Frips apvienotos ar grupas pirmā sastāva dalībniekiem, atzīmējot "In the court of the crimson king" 40 gadu jubileju, izpildot šo albumu tā pilnībā. Bet diemžēl vairāk par slapju sapni šādu vīziju nosaukt nevar - šāda tūre patlaban šķiet ne mazāk neticama kā trio "Giles, Giles and Fripp" negaidīta apvienošanās un filmas izveidšana par Rodniju Todiju (kurš, kā zināms, bija resns un nesmuks).

Tā vien šķiet, ka vēl nedaudz un pārvērtīšos par teju vai ekspertu Paula Bankovska daiļrades jautājumos - šī ir jau ceturtā viņa grāmata, ko esmu šogad izlasījis, un arvien vairāk pārliecinos vienā - ka Bankovskis raksta daudz. Protams, lai par kaut ko tādu pārliecinātos, nav nepieciešams lasīt vienu viņa grāmatu pēc otras, bet pietiek atvērt Vikipēdiju, kur nepilnajā viņa darbu sarakstā parādās 8 romāni un 3 stāstu krājumi, bet vēl vairāki citi darbi pieminēti tekstā, un tas viss tapis nedaudz vairāk kā 10 gadu laikā. Tiešām iespaidīgi, ko lai citu saka.

Līdz šim biju lasījis tikai Jerofejeva memuārus "Horošij Staļin", bet tagad esmu iepazinies arī ar vienu viņa "daiļliteratūras" grāmatu - stāstu krājumu "Pupok". Apstiprinājās mans sākotnējais spriedums, ka viņš varētu būt Dostojevska un Henrija Millera krustojums - "Pupok" stāstos netrūkst smagu pārdomu un tāpat tur netrūkst baisas vulgaritātes, varbūt ne gluži Sorokina "Goluboje salo" līmenī, bet šeit atrodas vieta gan stāstam par piecgadīgu bērnu - slepkavu, gan stāstiem ar "pirmspubertātes pežām" un citiem tikpat burvīgiem vārdu savienojumiem. Sava tiesa, cik var spriest, nāk no paša Jerofejeva bērnības atmiņām, kamēr citiem darbiem viņš ietekmējies kaut kur citur.

"Saraband" ir droši vien vissērīgākais izcila kinorežisora karjeras nobeiguma punkts. Ne tādā ziņā, ka tu vēro kādreizēju ģēniju nolaidušos līdz nožēlojamam līmenim - taisni tādu parādību netrūkst, bet gan šī ir filma, kuru uzņemot tās režisors ir zinājis, ka tas ir pēdējais akords, punkts izcilai karjerai un atvadas no laikmeta. Un apzinoties to, ka "Saraband" vēsturē ieies kā pēdējā viņa filma, Bergmans patiešām mēģina izdarīt to, ko savas dzīves noslēgumā gribēja izdarīt Dewey Cox - radīt vienu dziesmu (filmu), kas apkopo visu tavu dzīvi, radīt filmu, pēc kuras tapšanas tev patiesībā vairs arī nevajag dzīvot. Vai būtu iedomājams, ka Bergmana pēdējā filmā varētu nepiedalīties Līva Ulmane? Nē, tas nebūtu iedomājams. Un pat vēl vairāk - savas atvadas Bergmans radīja kā turpinājumu vienai no savām (daudzuprāt) izcilākajām filmām - "Scenes from a marriage" (kuru vēl neesmu noskatījies, bet plānoju to izdarīt tuvākajā laikā), savedot kopā divus varoņus, kas nav viens otru redzējuši trīsdesmit gadus. Zinot to, ka Bergmana filmas jau parasti nav sevišķi dzīvespriecīgas, ir skaidrs, ka "Saraband" ir viens pamatīgs raudamais gabals (ne tādā ziņā, ka es raudāju - bet varētu). Filmā viss tiek pasniegts ļoti minimālistiski - bez sevišķiem plašumiem, ar četriem aktieriem (ok - pieciem, ja pieskaita Mariannas meitu), pāris slēgtām telpām, kurās norisinās gandrīz visa darbība, tā ka "Saraband" ir tuvāka teātra iestudējumam nekā kinofilmai (Zviedrijai patiesībā tā sākotnēji bija domāta kā TV filma, tomēr Amerikā piedzīvoja arī izrādīšanu uz lielā ekrāna). Un tā ir skumja līdz pēdējai robežai. Ulmanes varone Marianna dodas apciemot savu bijušo vīru Henriku viņa lauku mājā, kur tas mīt kopā ar savu dēlu un mazmeitu - čellistiem. Henriks nav vēlējies Mariannu redzēt, bet viņa tomēr ir atbraukusi.

Interesanti, ka kritiķu aprindās "A Mighty Wind" tiek uzskatīta par labāko Kristofera Gesta projektu kopš "This Is Spinal Tap" (kurai viņš gan, kā zināms, nebija režisors), atgriešanos pie mūža labākās formas utt. Taču man radās gluži pretējs iespaids - ka no viņa pašrežisētajām parodijdokumentālajām filmām šī konkrētā ir vismazāk interesanta. Tā vēsta par to, kā trīs savulaik populāras sešdesmito gadu folkmūzikas grupas apvienojas, lai piedalītos koncertā sava kopīgā menedžera piemiņai. Filmā piedalās praktiski visi tradicionālie Gesta filmu aktieri (un arī vairāki cilvēki no "Spinal Tap"), taču šoreiz viņu līdzdalība ir stipri vien bezzobaina un nesmieklīga. Un kur ir šīs filmas problēma? Visvairāk tā slēpjas tajā, ka filmas "varoņi" nav īsti apsmiešanas vērti. Citās filmās ar Gesta piedalīšanos viņa satīras mērķi bija jēdzīgi - vai tie būtu mūžīgi stilu mainoši līdzi laikam metālisti kā tas bija "Spinal Tap" gadījumā, personīgā ego pārņemti suņu audzētāji iekš "Best in Show", par Oskariem sapņojoši aktieri no "For Your Consideration" vai nemotivēti pēc slavas tiecošies ciemata mūzikla veidotāji iekš "Waiting for Guffman". Tikām "A Mighty Wind" personāži lielākoties ir skumji, un patiesībā ir skaidrs, ka Gests par viņiem arī sevišķi nemēģina smieties. Faktiski no trim "grupām", kas parādās šajā filmā, komiski ir vienīgi "The New Main Street Singers" - grupas rīmeiks ar nesaistītiem dalībniekiem, kas tikai izmanto vecās grupas vārdu. Savs humors ir, protams, arī filmas dziesmās, taču:

Pēdējā laikā man sanācis diezgan daudz lasīt dažādas grāmatas par sporta tematiku. Dažas no tām ir labākas, dažas - mazāk labas. Dažas no tām ir aizraujoši lasīt, dažas - ne visai. Dažas no tām ir neitrāli uzrakstītas, dažas - ne visai. "Latvijas olimpiskā vēsture" ir diezgan noderīgs materiāls kā faktoloģiskas informācijas krājums un es to droši vien būtu izmantojis, ja man būtu vēlme papildināt Wikipedia ar kādu informāciju par Latvijas olimpiešiem, taču tā cieš no viena, manuprāt, būtiska trūkuma. Un proti - tā kā šo grāmatu izdeva Latvijas Olimpiskā komiteja, šī grāmata manā uztverē ir pārāk pašpārliecināta, pārāk slavinoša un bezkritiska. Un līdz ar to man daudz kas tajā ne visai patīk. LOK te tiek diezgan pamatīgi slavēta, un vietās, kur būtu nepieciešams kāds skarbāks vārds, šī skarbākā vārda nav, un tas man ne pārāk patīk. Pamatā tas, protams, attiecas uz mūsdienu Latvijas sasniegumiem olimpiskajās spēlēs - ieskaitot Ilondas Lūses slavēšanu par to, ka viņa nevienās sacensībās Olimpiādē neieņēma pēdējo vietu. Nē, protams, visu cieņu sievietei, ka viņa centās, izpildīja olimpiskos normatīvus un startēja tik labi, cik vien varēja, bet jautājums ir par to, vai šādu sportistu sūtīšanai uz Olimpiskajām Spēlēm ir arī kāda praktiska jēga, un tas attiecas, protams, ne tikai uz Ilondu Lūsi, bet arī uz daudziem citiem tautiešu sportistiem. Kad jākritizē kādi padomju funkcionāru lēmumi, tam vienmēr visi ir gatavi, bet tikko runa ir par savējiem, tā uzreiz acīm priekšā tiek pieliktas kaut kādas klapes. Un vispār, tam gan, protams, nav nekādas saistības ar šo grāmatu, manuprāt, tādai sīkai Latvijai kā mums vajadzētu noteikt ne vien atsevišķus prioritārus sporta veidus, kurus finansēt no valsts puses, bet galvenais - neļaut uz Olimpiādēm braukt cilvēkiem, kuriem tur nespīd nekādi rezultāti, un izvirzīt sekojošu atlases kritēriju - ja sportists ir tādā līmenī, ka viņš varētu cerēt uz iekļūšanu PSRS izlasē - lai viņš brauc uz Olimpiādi, varbūt vēl kaut kas sanāks, bet ja viņš ar mokām izpilda olimpisko B normatīvu - lai paliek mājās, un viss.

Šo filmu skatījāmies tālab, ka MA to bija noraksturojis kā līdzīgu (un līdzīgi labu) vienam no maniem personīgajiem pēdējā laika "hitiem" - "In Bruges". Starp šīm divām filmām bija viena acīmredzama līdzība - Kolins Farels galvenajā lomā, bet atšķirību ir daudz vairāk. Pirmkārt, viena filma ir tapusi Britu salās, kamēr otra - Holivudā. Otrkārt, Phone Booth režisors ir amerikāņu vecmeistars Džoels Šūmahers, kas gan par meistaru saucams nosacīti, jo liela daļa viņa filmu nav neko diži labas, bet "In Bruges" radītājs vispār bija pilnmetrāžas kino debitants, taču vienlaikus - izcils dramaturgs. Arī stilistiski man šīs filmas sevišķi līdzīgas nešķita.

Jau pirms kāda laiciņa bibliotēkas plauktā ievēroju Maikla Mūra "Vecīt, kas notiek ar manu valsti?". Lai arī savā ziņā es esmu mūr-ists, tomēr zināmas bažas par to, cik augstvērtīga lasāmviela varētu būt viņa pārdomas par štatos notiekošo, man bija. Es domāju, ka pat vairums izteiktu Mūra fanu atzīst, ka gluži objektīvs viņa skatījums uz situāciju lielākoties nav un ka viņa tā sauktās dokumentālās filmas tomēr ir vairāk vai mazāk propagandiskas. Tādā ziņā, ka pirms filmas veidošanas Mūrs jau iepriekš zina, ko viņš ar šo filmu pateiks un kāda veida materiālus izmantos. Taču tā diemžēl vispār ir "dokumentālā" politiskā kino tedence, ka uz jebkuru situāciju tas parasti skatās no vienas noteiktas puses, nevis mēģina saprast visu pušu viedokli.

I sometimes wonder - on what basis is it usually chosen what foreign books deserve to be translated and published in Latvian. Everything is perfectly clear with books which come from publishing houses known to present literature for the masses, they choose by looking at bestselling lists and considering whether the book in question is common and simple enough for the average reader to enjoy it. That is the way the books of Dan Brown, Sidney Sheldon and Danielle Steele (I`m pretty sure I`ve misspelled her name, but I don`t care about it anyhow) reach the Latvian reader. Of course, I understand that usually such books get published because there`s much demand for literature of this category, but that doesn`t necessarily mean that I should accept this fact without expressing any rude words about it. For I believe that the more trash you publish, the more you lower the common denominator, the more people will be interested in reading that sort of trash and there`s very little possibility to regain regular readers of cheap Russian detective stories for some more intellectually more valuable literature. Personally I don`t think that a person that reads worthless literature is any more intellectual that a person that doesn`t read anything.

Ziņģis pie mums vakar atnāca ar DVD ar otro Matrix. Tā kā šī filma man atmiņā bija palikusi gaužām izbalējusi, izlēmām, ka to tīri labi varētu noskatīties atkārtoti, un tā arī izdarījām.

"Pieci cilvēki, kurus tu satiec Debesīs" ir grāmata par nāvi vai, pareizāk sakot, par to, kāda varētu būt pēcnāves pasaule. Principā jebkurš autors par šo tēmu droši un brīvi rakstīt, jo, kā zināms, patiesību šajā jautājumā noskaidrot ir diezgan pagrūti. Kurts Vonnegūts apgalvotu, ka pēcnāves dzīves nav. Bernards Verbērs teiktu, ka tu tiec nosvērts un vai nu kļūsti par eņģeli vai atgriezies uz grēcīgās zemes. Kristieši teiktu, ka tu vai nu nonāc Dieva valstībā vai pie ragainā puiša. Katrā ziņā teorija, ka pēc nāves cilvēks kļūst par vienu bitu kāda Alabamas lauku pilsētiņas bibliotēkas datora cietā diskā, nav ne par mata tiesu labāka vai sliktāka par visām citām.

Tas beidzot (diemžēl) ir noticis - esam noskatījušies visas 5 Futurama sezonas pilnā apjomā. Pienācis laiks salikt punktus uz i, izteikt spriedumu un dzīvot tālāk.

Pēdējā laikā tā intensīvāk esmu pievērsies ziemeļvalstu literatūras iepazīšanai, kas man ir nesusi gan patīkamākus mirkļus, gan mazāk patīkamus. Pie pirmajiem būtu pieskaitāms Svens Oge Madsens, kas vispār ir mans pēdējā mēneša iecienītākais rakstnieks (varētu saukt arī ilgāku termiņu). Eisteins Lenns noteikti ietilps otrajā kategorijā. Šis viņa romāns, manuprāt, ir diezgan nekārtīgs. To ir grūti lasīt un grūti uztvert, bet atšķirībā no jau pieminētā Madsena šī sarežģītība rada haotiska rakstījuma sajūtu un nevis veikli savērpta tīkla iespaidu. Līdz ar to šķiet, ka Lennam vienkārši nav izdevies uzrakstīt romānu tā, lai tas būtu interesants. Romānā it kā nav īpaši daudz personāžu - sprinteris (pusmūžā) Bērds, viņa māsa Sofija, viņas vīrs Simmens, Bērda un Simmena draugs Leons - punduris džeza pianists, Linda - Leona kādreizējā mīļākā, kas iepriekš bijusi prostitūta, Ulsens - kādreiz viņš bija Leona priekšnieks mehāniķu darbnīcā, kur tika pārstrādāti zagti autiņi, tad viņš kļuva bagāts un tika ietupināts cietumā. Tagad Sofija ir aizbēgusi no Simmena uz Spāniju, kur sastapusi tipu, ar kuru kādreiz kopā mācījusies un kura vārdu es nespēju atcerēties. Leons ir Alžīrā - savā bērnības zemē, kur viņš mēģina vai nu kaut ko sevī atrast vai arī nē. Bērdam kļūst slikti ar sirdi skrienot. Un vispār viņiem visiem ir garlaicīgi. To varētu nosaukt par tādu kā buržuāzijas valdzinošo šarmu, ja te būtu kāda miņa no kāda šarma vai no kāda valdzinošuma. Faktiski te ir miņa tikai no bezgalīgas miega sajūtas, kas mani personīgi dara traku. Nekas nenotiek, šķiet, ka nekam arī nevajadzētu notikt, bet romāns tikai turpinās un turpinās un man kļūst arvien garlaicīgāk, tik garlaicīgi, ka "atrisinājums" (ja šāds vārds te vispār būtu lietojams) manī izraisa tikai vienu emociju - atvieglojumu, ka beidzot šī grāmata ir galā.

Rakstīt par filmu, kurā piedalās Lara Krofta, bez zināma smīna sejā laikam gan nav iespējams. Tu nezini, kas ir Lara Krofta? Paskaties šito!

"The Office" otrajā sezonā ieskaitu arī divas papildu epizodes, kas tiek sauktas par "Christmas Special". Kāpēc tā daru? Tāpēc ka, atšķirībā no vairumu angļu televīzijas raidījumu, attiecībā uz The Office šie specials patiešām ir būtiska loma kopējā sižeta izspēlē.

Šo filmu gribēju noskatīties jau ļoti sen, taču visu laiku centos tās skatīšanos atlikt uz vēlāku laiku. Šāds apgalvojums šķiet neloģisks? Bet tā ir patiesība - es zināju, ka "Dirty pretty things" ir laba filma, bet zināju arī to, par ko tā ir. Un par ko gan ir šī filma? Par nelegālajiem imigrantiem Londonā (līdzīgi kā "Children of Men"), kuri apmaiņā pret Eiropas Savienības pilsoņa pasi ir gatavi atdot savu nieri. Galvenais filmas varonis ir kāds vīrietis no Nigērijas, kas nelegāli strādā viesnīcā un par taksistu un kas savā viesnīcas darbā atklāj, ka kāda numura tualete ir aizdambējusies, jo tajā kāds ir mēginājis nolaist cilvēka sirdi (starp citu, šis elements man tā arī nekļuva skaidrs - es saprotu, ka gadās, ka izņemot nieri, cilvēks nomirst un tad no līķa vajag atbrīvoties, bet kā to var visu nolaist podā, es nevaru saprast - manuprāt, piemēram, kauli varētu radīt lielākas problēmas nekā sirds, bet variants, ka sirdi nolaiž podā, bet pārējo līķi aiznes projām neliekas praktisks - ja nu vienīgi, lai līķis būtu vieglāks). Anyway, šis cilvēks grib noskaidrot, kas tur par štellēm notiek. Un izrādās - tas, ko jau augstāk minēju. Turklāt pie policijas viņš iet nevar, būdams nelegālais imigrants. Vispār es personīgi negribētu būt nelegālais imigrants, jo, cik sapratu no šīs filmas, viņu dzīve vislielākajā mērā ir saistīta ar piespiedu stāšanos dzimumsakaros ar visdažādākajiem pretīgiem izmantotājiem. Jā, šim āfrikānim ir ļoti labas attiecības ar kādu turcieti (kuru atveido Odrija Totū), kura ir salīdzinoši legālāka nekā viņš - viņa vismaz ir pieteikusies, lai dabūtu patvērumu, vienīgi viņa pagaidām arī nedrīkst strādāt, bet loģiski, ka ir spiesta to darīt, lai izdzīvotu. Viņa arī saņem piedāvājumu apmainīt nieri pret pasi (no Huana, nigērieša Ogves - ja nemaldos tā viņu sauca - priekšnieka). Ogvem tas pats priekšnieks piedāvā kļūt par "ķirurgu" - jo viņa tagadējais nieru izņēmējs bieži ne tikai sabojā pacientu (letāli), bet arī nieri, ka to vairs nevienam nevar pārstādīt. Ogve sākumā, protams, nepiekrīt, bet kad uzzina, ka Šanaija (tā sauc Odriju T.) izlēmusi likties zem naža, viņš piekrīt viņas operāciju veikt pats (iepriekš Huans, apmaiņā pret Šanaijai sniegto iespēju kļūt par eiropieti, ir viņai arī laupījis nevainību). Tikai Ogve ir gudrāks un viltīgāks, nekā varētu domāt. Reāli notiek tā, ka viņš sazāļo Huanu un aiztinas ar pasēm un naudu, kas saņemta par Huana nieri (kā teikt, dots devējam atmaksājas). Beigas, protams, ir salīdzinoši laimīgas, bet filma kā tāda - nu ne visai, kaut gan, protams, ļoti kvalitatīvs un "liels" kino.

(valoda: franču; subtitri: angļu). "Ibrahima kungs" tapis pēc Ērika-Emanuēla Šmita stāsta (romāna?) "Ibrahima kungs un Korāna ziedi". Tajā galvenajās lomās ir pavisam jaunais Pjērs Bulanžē un arābu kino superleģenda Omārs Šarifs. Sižets, loģiski, ir tāds pats, kā grāmatai. Mozus ir 16gadīgs zēns, kas ar savu tēvu dzīvo kaut kādā Parīzes nomalē 60to gadu sākumā, tēvs ir diezgan valdonīgs un nejauks, un Mozum ar viņu nekāda kontakta nav. Toties pamazām viņam izveidojas kontakts ar stūra veikaliņa īpašnieko Ibrahimu - vecu arābu (kurš gan patiesībā ir sikhs, nevis arābs). Šajās attiecībās, kā par brīnumu mūsdienu pasaulē, nav nekādas pedofīlijas, pederastijas (skaists vārds, ne?) vai kaut kā tamlīdzīga. Ibrahims vienkārši ir normāls vecs tips, kas rūpējas par zēnu, par kuru neviens nerūpējas un kuram sagadījies būt dzimušam tādā reliģijā, kurai ar islāmu un Korānu nav nekādas labās attiecības. Kad Mozus tēvs pazūd un pēcāk izdara pašnāvību, Ibrahims viņu adoptē un pat kopā ar Mozu dodas uz Turciju, Ibrahima dzimteni. Filma gandrīz 100% seko grāmatas saturam un līdz ar to, neko sliktu par filmu pateikt nevaru. Precīza ekranizācija lieliskai grāmatai.

В очередной раз я получил хороший урок, которому наверняка не буду следовать - перед просмотром фильма ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНО нужно узнать, что это будет за фильм. Но я зачастую этому святому принципу не следую. Слова "Комедия, Франция, 2003-й год" мне показались достаточно привлекательными, чтобы отдать 90 минут своей жизни данному произведению искусства. Но почему-то я прозевал, что в описании фильма упоминается слово "младенец". Вот если что-то я терпеть не могу, так это комедии с младенцами, будь то французские, американские или хоть фильмы племени уга-вуга. Это не потому, что я не особо горячо обожаю младенцев (хотя это тоже верно), а потому, что такие фильмы почти всегда - дрянь. Мелкий гаденыш, который вытворяет разные трюки со собственными экскрементами и оказывается хитрее всех взрослых - ужас, как это тупо! А на самом деле "Плохое настроение" начинается достаточно нормально - Симон - уличный художник-неудачник, который увлекается архитектурой, у него есть подруга, любовник которой живет в палатке посередине квартиры Симона. Так вот этот Симон обнаруживает, что в центре города строится большой дом по у него украденному проекту, вот Симон и становится злым и решает найти крутого архитектора Пореля, компания которого дом строит и добиться от того компенсации. Однако к Порелю такие "обокраденные" приходят ежедневно, а Симон становится агрессивным, вот его и забирает полиция. Да только ему удается вырваться от полицейских и... попасть под машину Пореля, который едет на роды своей жены. А потом Симон рождается сыном Пореля, имея память о своей предыдущей жизни. Ну и теперь он всеми своими небольшими силами пытаетя Порелю насолить...

Wenn man ehrlich sein muß, habe ich schon genug von solchen Schriftstellern der zweiten und der dritten Klasse. Sie alle schreiben nicht slecht, ABER so was könnte auch ICH geschrieben haben. "Pokorny lacht" ist die Geschichte eines Komikers, der das Leben ein wenig zu ernst nimmt und der selber immer traurig ist. Das ganze Leben lang hat er nur einen einzigen Freund gehabt, dem er hätte änlicht sein wollen. Er kann ihm aber nicht ähnlich sein, da er immer Menschen beindrucken will. Von einer Seite kann ich sagen, daß ich mit Friedrich Pokorny mich schon ganz gut identifizieren kann - da er immer komisch sein wollte, nur damit andere Menschen ihn cooler finden würden, das andere geht aber zu weite. Seine Affäre mit der Freudnin seines Freundes Zachers ist für mich zu Obskur, um verständlich zu sein, und nicht nur die Affäre, sondern das ganze Leben Pokorny`s ist ziemlich doof. Am Ende kann er natürlich wenn nicht alles, dann ziemlich vieles schon ändern. Er hat ein Streit mit dem Zacher, daß mit Prügelei endet und nur danach versteht er, wie vieles er falsch getan hat. Egal schon, solche Bücher gibt es in Tausenden und keiner solcher Schriftsteller bleibt länger als fünf Stunden berühmt. Vielleicht soll ich doch etwas auch selber schreiben, es ist eine ganz lange Zeit seit meiner letzten Erzählung her.

Kas ir "Dub Side of the Moon"? Grupiņa regeja meistaru ir paņēmusi Pink Floyd albūmu "Dark Side of the Moon" un iespēlējusi to regeja ritmos (tāpēc arī "Dub").

Šī Zelta globusu saņēmusi afgāņu filma ir viens no tiem mūsdienu kino darbiem, par kuriem cilvēki vai nu nerunā neko (nav redzējuši) vai runā labu (ir vai nav redzējuši, nav svarīgi, bet saprot šīs filmas nozīmi).

Jau trešais Etvudas (Atvudas) romāns, ko esmu izlasījis pēdējo dažu mēnešu laikā, turpina mani novērst no pārliecības, ka šī varētu būt tā saucamo dāmu romānu rakstniece. Gluži otrādi - Oriksa un Kreiks ir vēl viens "Handmaid`s tale" līdzīgs gabals par pasauli, kura izmainījusies līdz nepazīšanai negatīvajā nozīmē. Romāna galvenais varonis Sniegavīrs ir (iespējams) pēdējais cilvēks, kas pārdzīvojis Kreika izraisīto globālo infekciju. Kreiks kādreiz bija Sniegavīra draugs Glens, laikos, kad pašu Sniegavīru vēl sauca par Džimiju. Oriksa bija sieviete no kādas Āzijas valsts, kas bija kļuvusi par bērnu prostitūcijas upuri, bet principā pret šo savu nodarbi izturējās ļoti mierīgi un atturīgi un vispār - centās nesatraukties. Romāna darbība norisinās 21. gadsimtā, kad cilvēki sasnieguši ievērojamus rezultātus gēnu inženierijā - radījuši suņu un vilku, cūkas un cilvēka, kā arī vēl kaut kādu citu dzīvnieku krustojumus un Kreiks ir sagatavojies jauna veida cilvēku - tā saukto Kreikeru radīšanai. Kopumā Kreiks, protams, ir trakais zinātnieks, kas izlēmis mainīt pasauli uz labo pusi, izdarot tajā kaut ko pilnīgi maniakālu. Tikām Džimijs vienīgais, ko patiešām iekāro, ir Oriksa, kas ir vienlaikus viņu abu mīļākā. Romānam ir visai tipiskas atvērtās beigas, kad Sniegavīrs iet sastapties ar vēl kaut kādiem izdzīvojušajiem cilvēkiem, nezinot, ko šī sastapšanās viņam nesīs. Ja salīdzina ar "Handmaid`s Tale", Oriksa un Kreiks ir oriģinālāka pieeja, mazāk ietekmējusies no Orvela, Hakslija un tamlīdzīgajiem, padarot šo grāmatu arī sižetiski interesantu. Protams, mani mazliet smīdina Atvudas pieeja nākotnes tehnoloģijām - klonēti cilvēki un kompaktdiskos uzglabājami dati, tipiski mūsu laikmeta datori un kaut kādas pilnīgi kreizī pārvietošanās tehnoloģijas, bet to laikam varu piedot - tas tomēr ikvienam ir skaidrs, ka Atvuda nav nekāda grandiozā tehnoloģiju pārzinātāja un viņai to iesaistīšana romānā ir tikai līdzeklis un nevis mērķis.

Если о Джеке Николсоне и можно что-то хорошее сказать, то не то, что он отлично выбирает фильмы, в который сниматься. Хотя критики и считают "Самтнингс готта гив" неплохим фильмом, лично я не понял, чего в нем такого хорошего. Да, Джек Николсон играет себя - мужика, которому уже за 60, но он не связывается с женщинами, которым за 30. И вдруг случается, что он знакомится с матерью своей девушки, а той уже больше 50 лет. И, конечно, происходит чудное преображение. По идее фильм этот старается быть драмой и комедией одновременно, но зачастую получается, что драматические моменты смешны, а смешные - драматичны, в результате ты смеешся, потому что фильм тупой и страдаешь по той же причине. В добавку к Китон и Николсону в меню подложили еще Киану Ривса, который играет приятного рода вырезанного из картона типа, у которого примерно столько же личностных характеристик как у куска дерева. Какого черта ему нравится героиня Китон и какого черта, когда он ей предложил выйти за себя замуж, он ее без каких либо эмоций отдает Николсону, мне уж точно не понятно. Наверное, потому, что он из дерева. А с деревянного парня не много то возмешь. Правда, начало фильма было если не многообещающим, но, по крайней мере, не тупым, и большая часть диалогов с участием Николсона в фильме тоже на уровне, но концовка была в духе самой паршивой мыльной оперы, какую только можно представить. Когда Николсон стоял на мосту и шел снег я все думал - они не посмеят кончить настолько банально, нет, просто не посмеят. Они, конечно же посмели. Ну и поздравляю их за героику.

Cik liels kvestu cienītājs lai arī es nebūtu un cik ļoti Liene lai arī nebūtu pacietīga un uzstājīga, šo spēli mēs līdz beigām neizgājām, par spīti tam, ka diezgan daudz nācās izmantot norādījumus, kā to spēlēt. Pirmajā brīdī šķiet, ka "Journey" varētu būt lieliska spēle - piedzīvojumu gabals, kas balstīts uz Žila Verna "Ceļojuma uz Zemes centru", kur gaidāmas dažādas saistošas vides un interesantas mīklas. Diemžēl spēlei defektu ir vairāk nekā Microsoft Windows blusu. Pirmkārt, sižets ir vairāk nekā saraustīts un par personāžiem domāts ir ļoti maz - Arianna, galvenā varone, nav vispār nekāda, vienīgais, kas par viņu ir zināms, ka viņa ir fotogrāfe, ko viņa regulāri atgādina. Pārējie personāži ir vēl daudz bezpersoniskāki. Programmētāji arī vietām ir makten pacentušies - pārvietošanās starp ekrāniem ir totāls pain in the ass, ka no vienas vietas nokļūt citā brīžiem ir gandrīz neiespējami tikai tādēļ, ka ļoti daudz kas gļučī. Norādes, kā ko šajā spēlē izdarīt, praktiski neparādās un mīklu risināšana sanāk vairāk bakstīšanās uz dullo, nekā sakarīga domāšana. Tas, ka galvenā varone mēdz kļūdas pēc iziet cauri kādai sienai, ka nepareizā secībā pacelti divi priekšmeti var novest pie tā, ka spēlē nevar tikt tālāk, jo kāds personāžs ar tevi atsakās runāt utt. vēl jo vairāk liek apšaubīt spēles veidotāju godaprātu. Līdz ar to mums pietika pacietības kopā ar Ariannu nokļūt pazemē, tur atrast pilsētu un aizlidot ar gaisa balonu pie Milžiem, bet tālāk spēlēt vienkārši piegriezās. Pats tu neko vai nu nespēj izdomāt vai arī baidies, ka tas novedīs pie kļūdas spēlē, dialogi ir tikpat interesanti kā multfilmās auditorijai vecumā līdz 10 gadiem, bet vietumis smukos skatus sabojā tizlie personāži. Nekādi nevienam neiesaku šo kvestu jebkad spēlēt!

Nez kāpēc man šķita, ka šāds ieraksts man faktoīdā jau bija, bet vai nu nebija, vai arī izdisa toreiz, kad faktoīds pirms pāris gadiem nosprāga. Eh, cik tas bija sāpīgi toreiz.

I`m not really sure why, but I believe that there is a tendency for me to rate collections of stories higher than novels (in average). And "Lunkenbergs fest" applies for this rule. The book contains 11 stories and most of them are good. The first one - "Das Totenschiff" - is a strange tale about a man who somehow kidnaps the tourbus he`s on, although he has no intentions for that. So he decides to ask as the kidnapper for the following - he asks his boss to let his workers leave work one our early today for there`s a holiday coming up, yet his boss refuses to speak to Ebert. "Der neue Mann" is a story that goes to her mother`s place for Christmas to meet the mother`s new friend but the whole thing doesn`t go very well. "Das Los" tells the story of a East German man who won the lottery in the West but wasn`t informed about that. "Kleine Taenzer" is a funny piece about an old rock band playing a boring event (by the way it`s dedicated to a song by Elton John - "Tiny Dancer"). It`s followed by the best story of them all - "Samstagsspiel mit Sallinger" - it`s about a dad who tries to be cool for his kid (and being cool means listening to "Green Day" and "Papa Roach") but who doesn`t convince the boy and who still regrets that many years ago he didn`t go to meet again a woman that offered him to read a book by Jerome Sallinger. At the end the book gets a bit boring though, so I won`t go into any more details.

A collection of stories. Some of them seem to be missing the final pointe, while others don`t need to have one. Actually I quite liked it, although now, just a few weeks after having read the book, I remember very little from it. Not memorable but enjoyable.

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.

"Did you know that the memory of a goldfish is only three seconds long? Every time they turn away and see each other it`s like the first meeting. Aren`t humans when they fall in love the same?" That`s a very imprecise quote from the film, that stills gives the main message of the film. What is this film all about? It`s about how fragile relationships are and how stupid people are that just fall out from one relationship to be dragged into another? There`s quite a lot of heroes in this film, so it was a bit hard to keep every one of them in memory even during the film and it`s even more complicated now. Tom has a relationship with Clara, but starts cheating on her with Isolde. Rosie is David`s girlfriend but he doesn`t seem to care for her much. Instead he turns out to be gay and falls in love with a man named Red. Red is Angie`s best friend and a gay, Angie is lesbian and she has a crush for Clara so she turns Clara into a lesbian (oh, and that doesn`t stop Angie from making love to Red once - who cares that she`s lesbian and he`s gay). After Isolde has had an affair with Tom (and Clara has dumped him therefore) she has sex with Tom`s colleague Larry. When Tom finds out he`s a bit angry. Meanwhile Angie and Clara split up for Clara isn`t ready for a monogamous relationship. So she teaches Isolde the pleasure of womanly love. But Isolde isn`t ready for a monogamous relationship and has some sex with some one named Shane, and that lead to the collapse of this lesbian relationship (although Clara has something with her friend Conzo as well). Tom meets a college teacher named Renee that tries to change him. Tom learns to know Rosie and they nearly got married, but on the night before wedding Rosie has sex with another man and decides that she may not be quite ready for that. Angie has found a new girlfriend - a certain Kate and they decide to have a child but their plans go wrong when Angie founds out that she`s pregnant from Red. Nevertheless they decide to stay together and keep the child. And as a bonus they have two fatherly figures - Red and David who have formed quite a strong relationship. Oh, and Clara starts a relationship with Isolde from the beginning, whilst Tom has given up his dirty activities - he doesn`t tell anyone about goldfish anymore and he doesn`t offer women to read Rilke out loud for him, he marries Renee instead. And the film ends with Clara and Tom getting together and Clara giving him the goldfish speech.

Once in a while I want to watch a film that wouldn`t require too many brain cells of me. Well, actually, I want to watch such a film most of the time for after a long day at work or at the university I`m usually not in the mood for Ingmar Bergman or something like that. One of the least demanding genres of cinematography is historical films. This sort of films mostly revolves around fancy dresses, pretty palaces and sexy women, thus leaving the brain problems behind. "Poor, poor Pavel" is a prime example for such a film. Well, maybe not for this film isn`t really about fancy dresses but about sick Russian minds. You see, the Russian emperor Pavel the First wasn`t really in his right mind, he had some visions about the way his country should be led yet being a bit childish and brutal at some moments he couldn`t really be loved by his people which led to him being murdered in a very broad conspiracy which was led by a certain count Palen (who happens to be a Baltic German, if I got that right). No one would expect such a film to be something staggering but it`s quite a good way to spend an evening with a visual form of history (since I had seen a documentary about Pavel the First, I knew the story pretty well and watched the film much more as a documentary film than as a dramatic piece).

This film first attracted me because of the casting - the leading roles in it are played by Fanny Ardant and Gerard Deparieu - two of the most prominent French actors. When I read a bit more about this film my attitude became much calmer - I noticed the word "prostitute" in the plot. I guess I`ve seen enough films featuring prostitution already - especially that goes for European films. But since I had very limited other options on my film list today I decided to give it a try. The film started with Catherine (Ardant) and her husband Bernard (Depardieu) who didn`t have a very good stage in their life as a married couple, especially considering that Bernard was cheating his wife now and then. So after receiving and addressed to her husband message from some woman stating "we had a great fuck last night" Catherine goes to a private club. And now I got really worried - will it be something like "Belle de jour" where she - a successful gynaecologist would eventually become a prostitute for no reason. But no - she hires Marlene (Emmanuelle Beart from "Mission Impossible" and "8 femmes" - films that I haven`t seen) to seduce her husband. And when she does and apparantely Marlene (who now calls herself Nathalie) also has some attraction towards Bernard (except for the money Catharine is paying her), the wife becomes jealous and starts terrorizing her husband. Everything would be fine, had the husband fallen for Nathalie - in the end when the story unveils Nathalie admits that she hasn`t done anything with Catharine`s husband for she just proved not to be his type but she wanted to earn some money without the need to be having sex for it. The whole triangle is kinda strange, of course, including Marlene who has quite a decent job as a hairdresser but who just can`t quite her nightlife, Catharine who enjoys suffering and knowing that a moron her husband is, and Bernard - who`s clueless about what`s going on and who in fact only wants to have sex with his wife.

One of these days I`m gonna cut all those Germans in tiny, tiny pieces! Man, how they know the best way to dissapoint me! This time I go to the library and I think to myself - now I won`t be getting me some boring and overblown crap, I`ll better stay with comedy. So I take a book with Hitler in Indians` closing on the cover and a title promising "Fun fun Fun!". And what do I get? Is this supposed to be funny? Man, even my change for Aerosmith`s "Falling in Love is Hard When She Pees" is funnier than these stories. Ok, they aren`t offensive, it`s just some sort of altered history which is meant to be a grotesque puzzle but to be it`s just another of those books that I can`t enjoy simply because there`s nothing in it. And it`s a book where you meet some of the biggest villains of the 20th century! It`s so depressing, how on earth can you find Stalin saying that probably some of the people who died in Syberia didn`t deserve it? I don`t find it inventive, I find it dull. And not because I would think - oh, God, how dares this Buch fellow write stuff like that! I don`t give a damn about what he dares and what he dares not. If you ask me, I would care if Hans Christoph Buch came to my place and peed on my rug - even then I would ask him how he dares to do it. I would only ask him how he dares to think that he`s a good writer if the only thing he`s capable of doing is peeing on the rug. So, Mr. Buch, what will you answer me for that?

Strange, so strange. Who would have thought that I would find this film good? Let`s think logically, for indeed we are people that never - I say never - base their opinions entirely on the "it`s so cute and cuddely" kind of attitude. No, sir. First, we have the facts. And what are the facts? "Love Actually" actually is a romantic comedy. You probably know what a romantic comedy tastes like. You take your two teaspoons of Jennifer Lopez, add a knife`s end of Matt Damon and here you have it - a romantic comedy. A film of this category is usually recognizable by a complete lack of funny moments in it. And what can you expect from a romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant (oh, he`s such a cutie! - pathetic) and Mr. Colin Firth? "Bridget Jones`s Diary" would be the correct answer. But since I answered the question myself, no prize will be give. Screw you, Mr. lucky one! I don`t really why but I don`t like Hugh Grant at all. Maybe it`s because of my admiration of Johnny Depp. No, I hope not. But the fact is that Hugh Grant`s pretty face can`t be found on my "top of the poops" longlist. I do like his British accent and I can`t blame him for being a bad actor but he somehow doesn`t snap it for me. Still this film isn`t actually about Hugh Grant. Yes, he does play the prime minister of UK and he says some pretty straightforward things to the president of the United States, maybe that`s the reason why I have nothing against Grant`s performance in this film, but he still isn`t the true star of this film. Who is then? I don`t know. I like the probably bisexual dude at the art gallery, he`s cool and he looks like a fellow named Maanis I briefly know. Then there`s this funny guy named Colin who thinks that if he`ll go to America all chicks will want to have sex with him just because he`s British. Still the aging pop star Billy Mack is probably everybody`s favourite. Who else would have sung the brilliant "Christmas is all around" if it wasn`t for Mack? Who else would have not given a damn about anything sacred in this world? I don`t mean to say that this is a film of pure genius, that something like this can`t be repeated by anyone, anywhere and anytime. But this still is one of the best romantic comedies I`ve ever seen. And I feel such a total loser that I watched it alone and not together with my girlfriend who was studying for some exam. For this is a film to share with someone you love.

Dear Johnny Depp, I am writing you this letter to tell you just how much I love you and how I want to spend my life with you. I`ve seen all your movies and I loved every single one. I consider you to be the best actor since Moses and the best looking man since Jesus. I want to hold you tight and I want to be your lollypop. Ok, maybe not.

The more you watch it the less interesting it gets. The characters repeat the same jokes most of the times. Lou and his not really sick friend Andy who always says: "I want that one" and later says "I don`t like it". Vicky Pollard and the dumb "yeah-but-no-but-yeah" stuff. The Scottish guy with his flute is kinda ok. The fatfighters things don`t go nowhere, the transvestite Emily Howard is dumber than dumb, and Anne, the crazy person ain`t too diverse. Oh, I do like "The only gay in the village" though. By the way, the extras don`t make it much better. After having watched "The Rock Profile" best-of I came to think - if it`s the best these guys can come up with in the field of immitating pop-stars what would be their worst? They aren`t too good with make-up, their jokes are mostly rubbish and they can`t even pick up the right stars to make fun of. For example, where the hell did they forget those nice and cuddely Gallagher brothers? And the thing is only getting bigger and bigger, despite the fact that after having seen season 1 I`m sure I won`t need no season 2.

This film stars Seann William Scott - one of the few actors who`s most films I`ve already seen (yuck, this sentence sounds like crap but it`s too late and I`m too tired to think how to improve it). The only other that comes to my mind is Brad Pitt, altough I haven`t really seen that many of his films. So, what is this thing about? Knowing that S.W.Scott never does serious films you`ll probably say - this is a comedy. And you will be right. It`s pretty dumb, of course, but for a S.W.Scott film it also goes without saying. There`s this message that some Tibetan monks have been guarding for the last ... years (fill in any number you like). But the whole time the message has only one keeper, a person that lives 60 years without getting old and that can fight like a real menace. But in WW2 fascists killed most monks and an especially nasty fascists almost got the message (it`s the kind of thing that makes you live forever and gives you more power than Bruce Lee had in his prime). And now in circa 2000 a young thug (Scott) in America is about to become the next keeper of the message as the monk from Tibet meets him and the thug named Kar starts fulfiling some silly prophecies. But then the fascists come again and start doing their nasty shit, for you know that underground Hitler support troups exist even nowadays. And even in your back yard! Yeah, for sure. Anyhow then there`s also this crazy chick that meets Kar somewhere below the city (in the underground) and that falls in love with him (if you put it that way) and that can also fight like a menace. The film is an action flick with lots of silly comedy - a bit like "Welcome to the Jungle" with the same S.W.Scott. Dumb but at least partly fun.

I took my time with this film. I wanted to watch it quite a while ago but I somehow always found better things to do. In the end I found out that it was worth watching it. A young woman with a loving husband and two daughters discovers that she`s only got a few months to live due to rapidly growing malignous tumours. So she makes a list of things to do before dying. Those include making love to another man than her husband, recording birthday greetings to both of her daughters until they`re 18, finding a new mother for her children and a new wife for her husband. The film is sad, of course, what else could you expect from a film about a young woman dying. But it`s not that heavy stuff as you`d probably think it is. It`s more beautifully sad than simply sad. At least I liked it, not that it means a thing.

This is the modern Monty Python so they say. And it really has a bit of feeling that the Circus team had. Yet it doesn`t work quite as well. I can`t deny that the two guys behind this project do have some guts - they don`t care for being politically correct. They poke fun at the fat, they poke fun at the gay, they poke fun at you. Yet their jokes don`t seem to have too much diversity. The whole show is mostly based on a limited number of typical characters that do the same things in different situations. In MPFC you also had a bit of that but rarely beyond the limits of a single show. Here you`ll encounter a fat chick talking gibberish nonsense in most of the episodes (not that I`ve seen them all but I`ve read about it). The introductions to every show are quit cool though. For example: "Britain. We`ve had running water over ten years, and we`ve invented the cat." Have the Britons invented humour as well? Probably they have, yet being the inventors of football they aren`t that good at it nowadays. And it`s a bit similar with jokes and sacrasm.

I`d probably never watch this film if I had my way, since it`s a bit similar to "Cruel intentions" for even younger teenies than the original one. Yet being on a bus to Hungary I had no real choice. So I watched it. There`s this chick that works in a magazine quite similar to "Cosmopolitan" but she`s too smart, to intelligent and all that to write about hair styles and new shoes, so she wants to impress her boss and convince her that she can do much more. Yet she doesn`t choose an exactly smart way to do that - she tries to write a guide to women how not to handle a relationship. On the other hand a dude whom she meets and plays her guide upon is in a bet that he can make any woman love him in just ten days. So it gets all romantic. A few hopeful scenes, several partly tolerable jokes and that`s it.

I could kill a person for writing a title this long. So the review will be particulary short because after finishing I`ll probably start a life long mission of finding and executing Mr. Delius. This book is a collection of essays about everything Mr. Delius considered important enough to write about. I expected it to be funny, it wasn`t. The organisation of the book in the form of a dictionary is enough to keep the rating above the water line but not more than that.

This is not fiction, or at least it`s supposed not to be fiction. On the other hand fiction is quite often less impressive than documentary. A norwegian journalist depicts a story of a muslim family in Kabul. The story is about Sultan - a book merchant - , and his family - two wifes Sharif and Sonja, his sons and his other relatives. The thing that`s most weird about the whole thing is that none of those people come off as being completely intolerable assholes, evil muslims or something like that. Sultan, for instance, is a man of culture who was a real rebel (or something like that) in the days of those crazy taleban sickos, he is liberal at some things yet he literally buys a second wife about thirty years younger than himself, he doesn`t care that his sons don`t get no education and is a real tyrant of the house. And that`s the case not only of Sultan. Probably it was the thing that saved this book for me - it wasn`t too preachy - a thing I dreaded it would be. No, it was quite interesting to learn what life can be like for a muslim. The main thing probably is that life not only sucks if you`re a muslim woman, but also if you`re a muslim man. And it puts a bit a different perspective to a lot of things, especially to my own attitude towards the whole Afganistan thing and the US. By the way, by this book it seems that Soviets weren`t one of the worst things that ever happened to Afganistan, which also is a thing I`d never think of otherwise. As a literary statement this book surely has no value, despite the fact that it does contain "stories" about people of the family.

I don`t pretend to know much about this band, `cos I don`t. I`m only pretty aware of the fact that it`s quite a new one for sure (at least it wasn`t formed in 1964 by a younger brother Paul McCartney never knew he had). What FoW do is basically playing unoffensive college rock for teenies of 1990`s/2000`s. They don`t pretend to make any significant artistic statements, they don`t pretend to be the next Captain Beefhearts or whatever. They are capable of `Mexican Wine`, a poppy song that somehow reminds me of Weird Al Yankovic. They are cepable of writing memorable melodies and quite decent lyrics. But they aren`t really capable of rocking hard, and they certainly aren`t capable of breaking the formula of college rock. And at that they aren`t particulary different from your average "Busted", with the exception that they are much more talented and aren`t just dummies used by some corporate assholes. Yet apart from that teeny-weeny thing they are just like those silly "Busted" punk-wannabees.

A very nice and quiet film about a girl who worked as a maid for Johannes von Vermeer. As a matter of fact this film has very little to do with "Diary of a chambermaid" but I somehow thought it would be appropriate to mention this film right now. Anyhow, Scarlet Jochansen and Colin Firth play the lead roles in this film. You can`t expect too much going on in this film, because the Netherlands wasn`t exactly a very much fun place back in the 16th century. Or at least we`re lead to believe that it was that way. What`s weird about the whole thing is that Mr. Vermeer don`t do no kinky stuff with his maid although a love story surely exists between them it doesn`t end up in hay, on the molbert or somewhere else. The film itself is like an art piece, like a painting. By the way, Scarlet really does look like the girl in Vermeers painting - that`s a huge plus for the film. You probably shouldn`t watch this one in a loud company, but together with your loved one it will be a real treat (by the way, I watched it alone, poor me...).

This film spun a massive controversy because its very sexual content. That was probably the thing Bernardo Bertolucci was aiming for, `cos otherwise his new work might have been unnoticed. Mathew is an American student that goes to study to Paris in 1968 and happens to be there at the time of student riots. Yet he doesn`t participate in them for he rather plays sex games with Isabelle and her twin-brother Theo. All of them are fans of good films and music, and they live in a world of peace and boheme. Before watching this film I was informed that there would be quite a lot of sex in it, and it was. Sadly apart from being beautifully done this film hasn`t got very much else to offer. As a matter of fact I`d think that it is a perfect film for a person that thinks of itself as a film expert but actually isn`t one (me for example). There are references to films by Godard, scenes from some old films are shown and once you recognise one of them you think of yourself very highly. If you don`t recognise the scene you think that it only proves the greatness of this film. As for me, I`m not a fan of French new-wave, but "The Dreamers" seemed to me being just a kinkier version of "Zabriskie point". And "Zabriskie point" isn`t my favourite film either.

The final part of the Matrix trilogy. It`s something more than a year since this film came out, and only now I finally watched it. Was it good? Was it stunning? Was it so-so? Actually it was better than I suspected it to be, but not nearly as good as it gets. The machines are attacing Zion and only Neo once again can stop the war. He has to fight the evil Elrond from the Lord of the Rings a.k.a. agent Smith and his gazillion of replicants. And he has to lose his girlfriend Trinity, and his vision as well, becoming some sort of Hulk. Not Hogan, of course. And he kicks some ass, and he makes peace with the machines, and some of the heroes live happily ever after. Oh, and Morpheus looks like a pimp. So, I don`t get what`s the philosophy in all this, but it`s no bad action film for sure.

Weird, it had been something like only 18 months since I last saw this film, but today it didn`t work for me as it did at that time. Ok, the idea is pretty interesting to show how a young man tries to stop the time and return the GDR in order for his mom not worry after she comes back from a coma, but still this film isn`t as good as I thought it to be. It probably works well for me, because I do have a certain amount of knowledge about what the GDR was like and what was happening at the time the events of the film took place. But for a person with an average knowledge of the subject it probably wouldn`t be interesting. Still I do think that this is a good film, but I`m not considering it a contender for an A or B list or whatever anymore.

American Beauty, American History X, American Pie, American Wedding, American Psycho, The Quiet American... the list could go on and on forever. What has this Splendor thing got that the other films don`t have? It certainly is the embolishment of the American dream, although in a bit acward way. First, it`s a film based on true facts, and it even features the prototypes of the films characters. Harvey Pekar is a middle-aged loser who works as a filing clerk, has been left by his second wife and has very little pleasure in life. His interests include collecting old records and comic books. I personally never got what`s so great about them comic books, but I don`t care. And one day he decides that he can start a comic book of his own - not about some superhero but about the average loser - himself. He can`t draw, off course, but there are other people who can. And he becomes massively popular, not that it makes him happy or anything, cos` he`s still a loser. He even gets married and he could be happy if he wanted to. But he doesn`t want anything like that. There`s also his friend Toby who`s a genuine nerd, and who`s proud for that. This film is somewhat similar to "Napoleon Dynamite" - in being an obscure comedy about a loser, although it`s less obscure for sure. And it also reminded me of a Simpsons episode called "Angry dad" - where Bart started drawing comics about Homer, and also became successful at that. This film is certainly worth watching, but not particulary interesting.

Paraquoting a review that "Spinal Tap" got to its album "Shark Sandwich" ("Shit Sandwich") this is Legally Shit 2, Blonde Shit 2 - or whatever you want. 17 minutes of this film was more than enough to stop watching it.

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.

This is an artsy film, for sure. You probably have never heard about anyone participating in the film. But does fame always mean quality? I don`t care whether it`s true or not. Amelie gets a job of an interpreter for a huge Japanese company - which has been a dream of hers for quite a long time. At first she finds out that she has no work to do - the only work she does is bringing coffee to the other workers. She has a positive relationship with her direct boss Fubuki, though, and even thinks that they are friends. Everything ends when Amelie accidentally meets Tenshi who gives her some real work to do and she gets a chance of being promoted. Fubuki doesn`t accept that for she has worked many years in orded to get into her position and she doesn`t want Amelie to succeed that quickly. So she starts giving her work which Amelie isn`t capable to do. First it has to do with numbers but in the end Amelie ends up working in the toilet of the company, listening to Fubuki`s cynical remarks the whole time. In the end Amelie`s contract with the company expires and she doesn`t go on, especially when Fubuki admits that the only work she believes Amelie is capable of doing is picking rubbish. So she goes back to her native Belgium and becomes a writer. As you can guess, this film is based on an autobiographical novel. What`s weird is that in the first 30 minutes you think that you`re watching quite a nice little comedy, but actually it ends up as a nightmare. Amelie would have probably left sooner, hadn`t she fallen in love with Fubuki. The film was interesting to watch, despite the fact that the subtitles for the film didn`t work perfectly and some of the monologues in French I didn`t get (althoug a part of them I could guess).

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!

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.

Rarely have I encountered such problems writing a review of a book as the ones I have right now. And why is that? Because the book in question is not only a worldwide bestseller that has left quite an impact on zillions of people but mainly because my attitude towards it isn`t really determined. There`s this professor Langdon who tries to solve the mystery of a French guy who did some important work in the Louvre. He`s wanted for murder of that fellow by the French police, but there`s the dead man`s granddaughter helping him. Together they try to solve both this mystery and the mystery of the holy grail itself. The ideas of the book? Not too many of them, I must say, basically it`s the holy femininity that has been hidden by Christianity through the ages, and now has to be revealed. The writing is pretty plain - Dan Brown is surely no great literate - his writing style is simple and clichesque, the tension isn`t especially high and the riddles are not too inventive. You see, I like the message, but I don`t like the letter, that`s something like that. In the hands of a better writer this could have been a great book, and a great film could be made from this, but as it is - it`s not much more than a good video game, something between "Broken Sword" and "Tomb Raider".

Can a teen comedy be really silly? Sillier than simply silly? For example, is it possible that a film of more than 90 minutes which is supposed to be a comedy won`t make you laugh even once, and if a grin appears on your face it`s only to showcase how lame the film is? I guess it`s most certainly possible. And it`s even a thing likely to happen if the words "National Lampoon" appear somewhere near the title. The plot is of course really twisted - there are two girls named Dominique, one of them a French exchange student, another one a hooker, who get mixed up. There`s an undercover I don`t know who who`s mixed up with a girl from the dorm. There`s this black guy whos girlfriend comes to think that he`s cheating on her. To be frank - there is nothing but misunderstandings. And there are no funny jokes. At least there`s not even a single mutual joke - and that shows something. What else? The actors suck, and it`s no wonder since they aren`t particulary famous. The music? Was there any? I`m not really sure, but it wasn`t good at all. I don`t usually rate films like this particulary high, but in the high seas of lameness this film deserves being called an ocean. Even Jim Jarmush would make me laugh louder than this.

Sean William Scott is so cute! Don`t you know him? His mom rocks! You still don`t know him? Why, it`s Stiffler from American Pie, of course. At the beginning of this film it seemed somewhat unexpected - mr. Scott doesn`t usually participate in serious action movies, he`s more of a silly character, and my theory wasn`t proved wrong. Of course, Scott`s character acted kinda silly. Beck (played by The Rock) is a cool guy for the most difficult missions, he`s sent by Billy on his last mission to find Billie`s son Travis who keeps looking for some artifact in the jungle of Brazil. To do what he`s supposed to do Beck must overcome a villain named Hatcher who runs a gold mine in Brazil, and Travis himself, who is a real dork most of the time. There`s also a sexy chick, who`s name I`ve already forgotten. Was it Michelle? No, but close to it, I guess. She`s the leader of local guerillas, who fight Hatcher. And there`s also a cool scotsman, who plays bagpipes. There are pretty good action scenes, the humor is mostly silly, but not offensive. Overall this is a nice film for relaxation when you don`t need to follow the plot or anything.

Does such a thing as the black sheep of the family exist in real life? I`m not so sure about that, but it surely exists in film and in literature. This film, for example, is about April who has been the black sheep of her family ever since her birth. She bit her mothers nipples when mom was trying to breastfeed her, she humiliated her brother and sister, she used drugs and stole things from home, never ever she did something good, she lived with a drugdealer, and now she invites the family over to thanksgiving. Since her mom has breast cancer, she decides that it may be her last chance to meet her daughter. April prepares to make a perfect thanksgiving meal at a perfect thanksgiving location, but almost everything goes wrong. Most of the time she`s running around looking for a stove, for hers has broken down. Her boyfriend at the same time is driving around doing nothing. The family also has its share of problems on their way to April, especially considering that everyone except for dad believes that the meeting is gonna be a disaster. And it is - when they see the crappy house in the strange neighborhood, and a scary black guy with blood all over his face turns out to be Aprils boyfriend they run away. But in the end contrary to logic, everybody still joins up and have a great time. This film is called a comedy, but some of its scenes remind much more of a drama. I liked Katie Holmes as April, so were Evette and Eugene (the black couple) really good, and the snobbish Wayne was also a character to remember. Most of the comic elements were memorable, but I didn`t finding the puking stuff very comic, especially since it was a cancer sick person who done that. The ending was very formulaic, and as for camera work - you could clearly see that this isn`t a big budget movie, and it isn`t meant to be a compliment.

The gritty axemen of Led Zeppelin are called the greatest rock band of the 70`s, the Beatles of the seventies, whatever you want - you can call them even Al if you like. And they were a pretty strong live outfit - with Jimmy Page flashing and dashing his fingers at the speed of light, with Jack Bonham dashing and smashing his drums like a mad scientist, with Robert Plant screaming the lungs right out of his mouth as if he was grabbed by the balls. Yeah, and they also had John Paul Jones - the base player, I don`t really know that much about him. And on this DVD you can see them still pretty fresh - with the material from their two first album being performed live along with something that could be covers of I don`t what or a live improvisation. Anyhow, the track selection could be better - only something like five of the 13 tracks are from the best the Zepsters ever recorded - I means stuff like "Communication Breakdown" and "Dazed and Confused", while on the unknown (to me) songs they do quite boring jamming, and I also am not particulary fond of "Moby Dick" - the ultralong drum solo. Still, Jimmy Page playing the guitar with a violin bow is totally cool (even if it`s a bit useless).

The bald gay person named Michael Stipe is the singer of one of the most popular contemporary rock bands. R.E.M. is the title of this band. And they have been around for almost 25 years now. On this DVD a retrospective of their videos is given from the day they joined a major record label. Most of these songs I know by heart without watching the videos - "Everybody Hurts", "Man on the Moon", "Losing my Religion" - and these are just the most popular once. The overall quality of the songs is certainly superb. And some of the videos are also quite intersting - for example the one for "The great beyond". On the negative side - the amount of extras isn`t extremly high - ok, if the so called "Bonus videos" were really something rare I would understand it but "I`ll take the rain" and "Lotus" don`t seem very rare to me. Then there are three songs performed live -they are pretty nice but nothing more. And as for the interviews between the songs - they aren`t particulary intersting, I`d rather hear Stipe and co. talking about the songs, and the videos, and not just talking `bout "things".

We`re going alternative. Jim Jarmush my ass! A completely unknown Russian film having less than 20 votes at the IMDB is alternative enough. What would the English title sound like? I guess there is no right ford for "zapoy". Hell! In a Russian film you can guess what kind of theory to expect - theory of long term drinking! And here we have it - Vitaly, an airplane pilot leaves his wife and especially his mother in law when they have disturb him while he had a hangover. He goes to his friend - a drunken philosopher who lives the next door and starts a drinking party there. His wife meanwhile guided by her mother finds a new lover, but it doesn`t go very well with him either, since her mother wants to give instructions even while the couple should be making love. Some other moments are also good, and so are the songs by "Leningrad" - a very controversial Russian punk band. Acting kinda sucks - you can clearly feel that those guys got very little bucks for their work, but the screenplay seems to be ok - a fun comedy showcasing the Russian habbits of drinking in a somewhat different manner from "Osobennosti Nacionaljnoj Ribalki". A masterpiece this is not, but for underground Russian cinema it`s not bad.

Igor Guberman is a Russian-Jewish writer of something that you would call poems if you had a higher respect for the guy. This book here at least doesn`t consist only of poetry since I`m no fan of any form of poetry I don`t really like this kind of stuff. But what this book provides is funny stories from Gubermans own life. Some of them may not be true, but the author in the preface mentions that while other people drink to forget he drinks to remember something that he never knew. The first part of the book about Gubermans life is really entertaining, if I don`t count that he sometimes tries to show how much he knows about sex. But the second part where he starts quite seriously discussing the problems of this world that seem to bother him, starts praising people he likes and putting down the ones he dislikes, the whole moralising thing goes down the drain. I don`t need a comedian to tell me serious stuff, he`s not that good at that, apart from spoiling the experience of this book it does nothing anyway.

This here is a higly contraversial Russian play. Some people claim it to be a piece of trash that one will never remember about except for its dirty scenes, while others compare it to the best works of modern and classical literature. What`s my judgement? I`d like to tell that the truth lies in between, but it`s not the case. What does this play tell us? There`s a 14-year old boy who makes some things out of plasticine, for example, a huge penis. He has a hard time at school because of his smoking and because of him being an orphan living with his grandmother. He has a friend who pretends that he get laid all the time but that is not true, of course. Almost everyone in the play uses a rude language. And perversion is on every corner. At the very beginning there`s a coffin with a child in a room which the main hero enters, and an elderly woman starts slinging him for coming too close to her in order trying to rub his dinky against her. And later he and his friend are raped by two drunk men. Yeah, and in the end the main hero is also killed by one of them. Great? I don`t think so. The only parallel I can find for this play is "400 blows" by F.Truffaud (that`s a film actually but who cares) only this play here has nothing to offer except for a child touching a womans womb and the hurt of a penis entering his anus. I guess, "this ain`t no technological breakdown, oh no, this is the road to hell".

This is a documentary that certainly can challenge Michael Moore`s latest output "Fahrenheit 9/11" in terms of poor quality. Of course, the budget of this film isn`t particulary impressive, but it`s not a problem. The Yes men are people impersonating members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and participating in this way at different conferences. It`s funny to watch how serious people watch the Yes men make fun of them without realizing that what they`re hearing may be true but it most surely isn`t what the WTO would say. For example, when the Yes Men offer to sell in the third world countries at McDonalds recycled products - recycled through the sewage system from the American and European bathrooms, it isn`t just a joke, there`s much truth in it. And so it`s about the words that slavery wasn`t as efficient as keeping the slaves in their native Africa and forcing them work for peanuts there. But a gigantic inflatable phallus attached to a manager suit and equiped with a monitor still is a good laugh. It may not be a film for the big screen (it`s where I saw it) but it`s a film worth watching.

Ed Bloom was a mysterious man that told different strange stories to the people surrounding him and especially to his son. But when he grew up the young Will Bloom didn`t believe in anything his father told him anymore, be it a village where nobody wears shoes or be it a man in the size of a mountain. But when analysing his fathers tales more through out Will understands that they aren`t completely imagined, that there are facts which they are based upon but every storyteller adds a bit spice to his tales so they would be less boring. And Will learns to understand, what a really amazing person his father was and on his fathers dying bed he understands that it is up to him to keep the good name of the storyteller, or something like that. In the end we see the heroes of his fathers stories coming to his burial, and here they are - the giant is big but not huge, the twins aren`t siamese, but that doesn`t change the fact that Ed Bloom was a man of a great value, and that is what his son needed to learn. I enjoyed watching this film, as it has some interesting imagery, it is a fairy tale, that`s true, but how can you not love a fairy tale as beautiful as this one?

Those pesky Japanese know how to make a good horror film. And here we get a chance to see one. Although the plot isn`t particulary good. I`m not even sure that there is one. There`s a haunted house where a man killed his wife, his child and his cat. Later on everyone who went into this house died. There`s no reason why that happened, and not even a real mistery, but the images are scary in the typical Japanese way. There`s a strange child that sometimes looks pale and sometimes doesn`t but all the time looks disturbed and scary. There are strange noises, people die then and now. You can`t feel safe anywhere, because creeping females can catch you everythere. A social worker, a retired policeman, his daughter, her friends,an active policeman are among the people that die because of the grudge. Probably, if you watch the film more than once you will be able to find out what the plot was all about, but the bare thought of doing that alone in my room gives me the shivers. Of course, this ain`t no "Ringu" but this most certainly is a decent horror film that will disturb your sleep if it wants to.

Are you fast? Are you furious? Do you have a cool fast car that you know you can race to the ground? I sure don`t. And therefore I don`t need this movie. Is it cliches you want? Then you got it. Is it a good action movie you`re after? Then you got another thing coming. A totally cool dude has to work for the police in order not ending up in the jail together with his black pal from the childhood days who`s angry with him. They must help to catch a major drug dealer. And what do they do for that? Of course, they do drag-races. And those races are CGI! They can`t even make a decent race without using a computer for that. And there`s a pretty chick who`s the bad guy`s girlfriend, but who really is good, and not bad. And she`s in love with the main hero, and there`s crash! boom! bang! and there`s nothing you can remember about this movie when just a few months have passed after watching it. It reminds me of "XXX" most of the time, but I was never a fan of that movie with a porn title in the first place, and there`s absolutely nothing a dumb cover version of that film can attact my attention with.

Gredzenu pavēlnieka triloģijas ekranizācijas pēdējā daļa guva tik daudz dažādu atzinību, ka man pat nevajadzētu par šo filmu rakstīt, tomēr es rakstīšu gan.

Not as heavy as `Brutal Planet` but still pretty impressive. Nowhere close to my A list though for I don`t have an A list for music.

What the hell was I hoping for listening to a new album by the Bangles? A soulless piece of junk worth not a single penny? Yup, that`s what it is. If I will ever listen again the rating might rise but still it`s not a record you might wanna own. Neither do I.

Execuse me but why do they always tell you that a donkey is someone who gets &(%*^ in the ^&*&^#% ? Lots of nasty stuff in here. There`s a novel entitled "Numbers" which is actually pretty good apart from those pervert kind of things which sometimes are a lot of fun but mostly they just don`t make it for me. Except the novel there are a few short (more or less) stories and a poem. The latter is absolutely worthless while among the stories some good parts can be found. Especially good is the one called "Akiko" which is about a pornsite that gets visited by a dude and the way he gets f**ked up in the process. "Focus group" - a strange story about death is also quite good.

One of the worst if not the worst film in the category "teen movie" or stupid american comedy, as a matter of fact. A film that features BOTH Leslie Nielsen and Pamela Anderson just can be good. And all those stupid tit and butt jokes and being hit by a shovel in the face are not what seems to be total fun to me.

Good ol` Mr. Beck still doesn`t give it up and wants to keep up with time. While his guitar playing still is top-notch the actual pieces of music don`t leave a strong impression. First problem that comes to my mind is that there are no real songs on here. Sometimes there appears a bit of vocals from Apollo 440 or something of that kind but there is absolutely no singing and there is too much repetiveness on here. I can imagine this record as a good background music but concentration on it ruins the impression.

A thrilling record. It`s almost impossible to believe that Cale is already more than 60. His music is still fresh and no aging problems seem to be visible. A very listenable record, certainly among the best 2003 could offer.

A famous english writer spends summer in her publisher`s house in the country (in France). She stays together with the publisher`s daughter - a young woman that mostly has sex with elder men. The ending seems to be totally bizarre, not to say any more. A good film although I can understand why Good By Lenin came out on top at the European Film awards.

That Jack Black is a really nice fellow - watching a comedy featuring him doesn`t mean that you will spend something like two hours of your worthy (or less worthy) life watching jokes of the banana peel slipping category. I gotta admit that I tend to like films about rock music, even the most stupid ones (like `Little Nicky` where the heavy metal business saved the day for me). And this one ain`t that bad, it`s certainly not even in the quality of `High Fidelity` but it`s still pretty good, and those children that actually play their instruments - now they are really awesome.

It is a cartoon, as a matter of fact, and a highly praised one, it was even nominated for this year`s Academy Awards. Well I don`t see what`s the fuss all about, not being a fan of cartoons as such, not even cartoons for adults, which most certainly is the case here (I would also like to point out that in the Oscars there is no difference between cartoons for children and for adults which have very little in common and can not be easily compared one with another). I can say that the animation was interesting but the cartoon as a whole was a true boredom.

Since I had very low expectations I wasn`t even dissapointed. As for a stupid teen comedy, this one is not the worst choice - it`s a bit pervert, a bit romantic and has good music in it. Some of the so called jokes are totally silly and even disturbing but one does not expect high art from a film of this category. The dance in the gay bar was cool and so was the good-behaving Stiffler. A guilty pleasure? Quite so. So what?

A highly praised film directed by Sofia Coppola - daughter of the legendary creator of the `Godfather` series. And this little ditty here is about a strugling actor (Bill Murray) and a young woman whose husband doesn`t pay very much attention to here, who meet each other in Tokyo. Not very much is going on in the film but the images are quite strong. Some nieces parts of dialogue where the older man explains to the younger woman about how it doesn`t get easier as life goes on. A really funny character is a famous actress who`s befriended with the husband of the young woman, who is certainly no bright person and lives in the hotel under the name of Evelyn Waugh without even knowing that she pretends to be a man.

It`s the weight that a person loses after the death. Probably it`s the weight of the human soul. Not that the film would tell that much about it. Basically it`s about a man who`s dying from a heart disease (caused by smoking!), a woman that has lost her family in a car accident and a man who has caused that car accident. Benitio del Torro and Sean Penn are the leading males while I can`t tell one american actress from another. The main importance is the timeline of the film that doesn`t go forward or backwards but is somewhat of a jigsaw puzzle so that until somewhere in the middle of the film you don`t really understand what`s happening. I still think that without that the film would lose much of its quality. I certainly expected more although it`s still a good film.

I had heard a lot about this film without actually knowing what to expect from it. First, you see that there are almost no props used in this film - everything looks like were was supposed to be computer graphics that wasn`t created. Anyway the lack of insignificant objects helps to concentrate on the characters. Grace (Nicole Kidman) flees one night from gangsters into the quiet little town of Dogville and is given shelter there. As time goes by one can see that Dogville is not such a nice place after all. Tom, a young philosopher, does his best to help Grace under the hard circumstances but his best isn`t good enough. And in the end the world gets a bit better. At the moment when Grace entered the car in the end it was clear to me what the ending would be like but until when - I had not a single clue about that. A very powerful film by Lars Van Trier - a Danish dude who doesn`t like America although has never visited the country. And the film is quite hard to watch.

It is very highly praised, not only because it`s directed by Clint Eastwood but mainly because of the leading actors - Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon. To be frank the film is not much more than a Crime movie (a detective so to say) although to some people it seems to be more than just that. As three kids play in the streets one of them gets abducted by pedophiles and his life never becomes the same. As a matter of fact, he`s not the only one affected by that. Many years later one of them who by that time is a retired criminal loses his daughter who`s shot under strange (not really) circumstances. One of the two former boys is a cop who works on the case, while the other one is the prime suspect. I`d lie if I would say that the film was no good, but one thing ruined it from becoming a long-time favourite of mine - and it was the ending which I found to meaningless and a bit dull.