Shaken and stirred

S#!T HAPPENS

2011-07-18T07:34:00.000-07:00

We are fast turning into a nation of idiots. How else would you explain the raging popularity of Imran Khan's Delhi Belly? Thanks to a song, the movie hurtled into the Indian teen consciousness and in their defence, it is a rather catchy number. The movie, as movies tend to do, went on to release and became an instant hit. My FaceBook profile was full of updates about how everyone that watched the movie had aching jaws, stitches in their respective sides and the other symptoms one might get from laughing too hard. I was intensely curious and wanted to watch the movie, ignoring the warning bell that went off in my head. All teeny-boppers seemed to worship the by now massively-popular movie and that, to me, should have been warning enough, but I chose to ignore it. And I paid for it. Boy, did I pay for it and how!

Delhi Belly is one of those inexplicably trashy movies that seem to have been made without an iota of thought on the part of those that made it. The movie was shot in English and was also dubbed in Hindi. But Hyderabad being Hyderabad, the distributors released just the Hindi version and thanks to them, I had to endure 100 minutes of a putrid, stinking mess with generous doses of gaseous emissions.

I tried. Believe me. I tried my best to get involved in the movie. To even laugh at it. But I failed. I just couldn't bring myself to laugh at the cheap gags. I mean, who in their right minds would laugh at a scene where indigestion and bowel movements take precedence? I realise that I just framed a self-explanatory question, but that is my current state of mind. I fail to understand where has good taste disappeared to? Has the humour in the Indian film industry started evolving backwards? It is hard to believe this is the same industry that produced gems such as Hera Pheri.

How irritating is it to watch a Hindi film shot in English and dubbed in Hindi? That's just plain ridiculous! The movie lacks story, the characters lack depth. In fact, the depth in the story probably is a function of the depth of the director's insight.

The music in the movie is uninspired, the jokes (yes, I tend to repeat myself) fall flat on their faces and manage to trip the actors in the process, the acting is worse than two-dimensional. The protagonist poses as a wannabe serious-minded journalist who dresses up like he's yesterday's leftover food. And there's plenty of that too, on display.

Going by how much popularity this movie has garnered, I can only see a future where hundreds of similar movies are made. Does anybody remember the gangster fetish kicked off by Ram Gopal Varma or the slew of youthful love stories in Telugu cinema?

In a nutshell (a rotten one, at that), Delhi Belly is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune of having to endure. In my opinion, it's akin to a disgusting, fetid, rotten animal carcass. Shit certainly does happen. Delhi Belly is proof.

The Genius strikes back

2010-12-26T01:39:00.000-08:00

Ram Gopal Varma has finally made a comeback, and how! For a long, despairing while, it seemed like the maverick director, responsible for hits such as Satya, Company, and not to forget, his very first film, Shiva, had lost his touch.
He produced a string of flops and his career graph seemed to sink rapidly and was in the danger of dipping below the horizon. But that was only his career graph, and thankfully, not his belief in himself. For, RGV, going by all the video graphic evidence, was his usual dry, arrogant and sarcastic self.

Like all clouds have a silver lining, and all tunnels have light at the end, so did the depressing run of RGV's dark days. Sometime back (I forget exactly when), RGV announced he would be making a film on the life of (in)famous Paritala Ravindra, who died a violent death in 2005. The title of the film was announced as "Rakht Charitra". RGV was so occupied with thuis project, that he devoted little time or attention to other projects, and the result was the little more than mediocre Rann. While the fact that RGV was going great guns the "RC" might have been the truth, all the common, movie going public could perceive was yet another flop from the "RGV factory", and soon, there were very few believers left.

But I remained a believer, and duly, when anybody would argue against RGV, I would argue for him. "Just wait for Rakht Charitra," I would say, "and you will see Varma make a grand comeback." But only I knew that my arguments were laced with more than a hint of desperate hope. The core of my belief in everything RGV was beginning to waver, and my voice had begun to quiver. But I still believed. The D-Day arrived, and Rakhta Charitra released in the theatres. And my belief in RGV stood vindicated.

With the bloody Rakht Charitra saga, telling the tale of rise, and fall of Paritala Ravi, RGV had successfully made a thumping comeback, and proved to one and all that on his day, and as a director, he is second to none.
I will not go into the story. I’m sure everybody who has or hasn’t watched the movie knows the story. Let’s instead focus a bit on the man himself, Ram Gopal Varma. RGV has always shown us that he is the past master of attention to detail. He also does not shy away from taking potshots at everyone. He does both with great gusto in this film. About two years ago, when I met RGV, I had, albeit briefly, spoken to him about the influence of “The Godfather” on his very first film, Shiva. RGV, very casually says “I think all my movies have traces of The Godfather in them.” That stands true for Rakhta Charitra, too.

Let’s look at the parallels – The Godfather is about a young man (Michael Corleone), who is reluctantly thrust into the violent world of the New York underworld after his father (Don Vito Corleone) is attacked, and his elder brother (Sonny) is brutally murdered. Rakhta Charitra, is about a young man (Pratap Ravi), who is violently initiated into the world of Rayalaseema politics, fractured by faction violence, after his father and his elder brother are murdered. In both films, the protagonist, after initial reluctance, through sheer force of personality, and inherent cunning, manages to rise to the occasion magnificently.

Then, coming to the the two movies. I love the way NTR was portrayed in the first film as Shivaji Rao (Shatrughan Sinha). Facing a task of considerable difficulty – that of playing a
venerated figure like NTR, Sinha just focused on the larger than life persona of the late actor, and thus, manages to hit the nail squarely on the head. His every facial expression, every inflection in the voice, every gesture is designed to shock and awe and enthrall. In short, Shatrughan Sinha plays the role like it is meant to be – A veteran of the silver screen, becoming a leader of men.

Viveik Oberoi does a magnificent job playing Pratap Ravi. Simply put, he turns in what is the best performance of his start stop career. He began his career in resplendent fashion, under Varma’s tutelage in Company.
After that his career never took off. With Rakhta Charitra, it can be said that Viveik Oberoi has risen from the ashes like the proverbial phoenix.

While I was intensely curious about how these two roles would be played, the thing that interested me the most, was how RGV would portray a lot of politically sensitive elements. Everybody knows NTR set up the Telugu Desam Party, which, back then, had the Bicycle for its symbol, and it would take a lot for RGV to portray that party without raising too many hackles. He does that. The party does have yellow as a major colour, and a bicycle, in various forms, keeps popping up in the frame. This Freudian use of implied inference, is a masterstroke by the director. It doesn’t stop here. RGV does a deft job of portraying the late Dr YS Rajasekhara Reddy, the former AP CM. YSR was a key player in the Paritala Ravi saga, and RGV just had to find a way to portray the Congress party, and the man himself.

YSR, is portrayed as a man whose face is never shown, but his cut-outs of political rallies, and a framed photo in his house prominently feature his right hand. As we all know, YSR was a man given to expansive gestures with his right hand, which has become a signature of sorts. The fact that this illusive man is accompanied by a Safari suit wearing confidante, ala YSR’s close friend KVP Ramachandra Rao, only goes on to strengthen this. The Congress Party, here, is portrayed with a close fist, as opposed to an open palm. With this RGV completes a hat-trick of sorts. The infamous Moddu Seenu – the man who confessed to killing Ravi, and who was later murdered inside Jail, is shown here has Muddu Krishna. After Ravi’s assassination, ‘Muddu’, as he is called in the film, declares he is responsible for Ravi’s death. He also goes on to say he killed Ravi to avenge the deaths of Surya’s family, just like it happened in real life.

In short, while Rakhta Charitra has its flaws and plot shortcomings, it is a movie that would be rated right up there with Ram Gopal Varma’s best.

Topic is over

The leading idiot

2010-12-12T11:37:00.000-08:00

That the Telugu Film Industry, 'Tollywood' (stop snickering!) produces movies ranging from the bad to the worse with dedication and discipline is a fact that is unknown to very few, seeing as how the industry is inhabited, and indeed dominated by filmmakers equipped with ever dwindling IQ. If any of you reading this are thinking about contesting this statement of mine, thank you my friends, but your services are no longer required on this planet. You are now free to kill your resepctive selves in whichever manner you deem fit, or unfit, as the case may be. However, it must take a special kind of idiot to make a movie that is as cringe worthy,, and as retarded as Daggubati Rana's debut vehicle, LEADER. That special kind of idiot, is the director, Shekhar Kammula.

Now I sincerely do not know whether Shekhar Kammula actually believes his movies are any good, or whether he has been fooled into thinking so. If the latter is true, I'm baffled by what ulterior motives lay behind such an inhuman act. The act is inhuman not because of the false sense of aesthetic superiority that the 'director' has been lulled into. It is inhuman because of the kind of tripe the few discerning humans among us audiences are subjected to. As if the over hyped, overrated, and equally, if not more (in comparison with the subject of my rant, LEADER)cringe worthy "HAPPY DAYS" wasn't bad enough, Shekhar Kammula, due to mystifying brainwave, decided to make a movie that will tap into the dormant political consciousness of the general movie going public, and make them more politically dynamic. Sadly, however, that idea seems to have died in gestation, as what the final product is, however, is a movie that is full of hammy acting, even hammier acting, bad...nay... worse dialogues... a plot line that is filled with more holes than a fisherman's net. To top it all, the movie was skippered by a director, who seemed to have abandoned all good sense, including a sense of direction, to the four winds (A bad pun, but it'll have to do).

Enough talk about the non-specifics that have gone into making this movie. On to this movie itself. The basic plot line is this - The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, is the victim of an assassination attempt. Just like every bad movie demands, the CM, after a protracted battle in the ICU, dies. Now here, we have a few interesting things to take note of. The incredibly yawn-inducing battle with death, is, in fact, a cunning plot device inserted to establish a background to the movie. In this case, the background is the dirty world of politics, where everything takes a backseat to hunger for power. At this juncture enters the CM's gormless, expressionless, senseless, and talentless son, Arjun Prasad. The poor boy, being in the US, studying for his masters, seems to have no clue that his daddy-dearest, is an Indian politician (Indian politician is a politically correct way of saying "corrupt", FYI). Hence, after his father's death (to which we add the mother of all 'icing-on-the-cake' effects - the dying father's last words - the son should become the Chief Minister), the son is horrified to discover the true extent of his father's corruption. So with steely resolve devoid of all facial expression, he sets himself on a personal mission - that of cleaning up the state politics. Good luck, son! Anyhow, on we go...

So, the hitherto political retard, is now an overnight politician, complete with arm-candy (a suitably dumb looking Priya Anand). He, with consummate ease, spins political webs, trapping his father's adversaries, and attracting his father's allies, and soon, manages to occupy the CM's Gaddi. Funny thing here is, our fresh pup of a CM is on a mission to eradicate corruption, yet, he has no qualms about bribing politicians and officials left, right and centre. Tired of his operation clean-up, the politicians now hatch a plot against him. So now, our hero thinks of yet another cunning plan (again devoid of all facial expression). The government's main political ally, very conveniently, has a daughter, who is just ripe for the plucking. Moreover, she is a social activist, who goes around calling the CM on his personal mobile. So the CM, with speed of thinking that would fail to surprise even Dr Manmohan Singh (equipped with his sunday best expression of surprise), decides to "romance" the daughter to bag the father's support. He does that, and yet fails to uphold his government. The young CM is in quandary now. The very values that he has sworn to uphold, he is now forced to betray just to keep the government alive. To hell with it, he thinks, and decides to fight it on his own, including his very own Padayatra (a favourite pastime of Indian politicians). He wins, gets sworn back in as Chief Minister (must be a record of sorts, an idiot getting elected as Chief Minister of state twice in a row. Are we smart or what!).

'Nuff said about the movie. In a nutshell, the movie is made of bad acting, terrible writing and downright horrendous directing (if there was any direction, that is). Nothing surprising, as every other Telugu movie can boast of the same. Why did I pick on Leader, then? Well, I had to start somewhere, eh? Rana Daggubati might become a good actor eventually, but there's very little evidence of that in his first film. Shekhar Kammula can't direct to save his life, and there is a lot of evidence of that. Don't make me go into the details again. Rana can't act, Shekhar Kammula can neither direct, nor write. And I can't watch. Such a happy family, eh?

I will end this rather abruptly by quoting my current favourite onscreen politician, Shivaji Rao (Rakht Charitra). Topic is over!

Once upon a time...

2010-07-30T23:50:00.000-07:00

It is a bizarre train of events that led me to watch 'Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai'. I was watching an old episode of Karan Thapar's 'Devil's Advocate'. It was the Devil's interview of that maverick daddy of all criminal lawyers - Ram Jethmalani. Karan Thapar questions Jethmalani about choosing to defend the then-prime accused in the Jessica Lal murder case, Manu Sharma. He questions Jethmalani's motives for picking some of the most notorious figures of all time. Of those, two names caught my fancy. One was that of Afzal Guru, the convict in the Parliament House attack case, and the other, was the infamous Mumbai gangster, Haji Mastan. There is something about that name that grabbed my attention. I looked him up on the internet, and then a chain of websites informed me that Haji Mastan has inspired Ajay Devgn's character in 'Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai'.

I've always had an unhealthy and ill-advised fascination for Gangster films. The Godfather trilogy, Scarface, Once Upon a Time in America, Goodfellas.... the list goes on.

But, Haji Mastan is the only reason I watched "Mumbaai", a movie that I otherwise would have religiously avoided, as it stars Emraan Hashmi - a man I really wish was born as a Jew in World War II Germany.

Anyhow, thanks to a post-midnight impulse, I booked myself a ticket and watched the film. And what a film it was, too!

The film shows the arrival and the rise of Sultan Mirza in Mumbai underworld. the character is played in fantastic fashion by Ajay Devgn, who apart from his signature brooding intensity, also brings undeniable charm, and old school style to the table. Style that was in vogue in 1970's Bombay. Milan Luthria, the director, has pulled off an amazing feat when he recreated the look, and the feel of Bombay, as it was then called.

Ajay Devgn, with his mind ruling his business, and his heart ruling his mind, starts conquering Bombay. And by "Conquering", I don't mean a bloody, "guns-and-knives" take over of Bombay. I mean conquering the hearts of people of Bombay. 'Sultan bhai', becomes the champion of the poor, the down-trodden, and the disenfranchised people of Bombay. his rise to the top is swift, and telling. Kids want to be like Sultan Mirza, and that, like nothing else, tells us about the kind of impact Sultan has had on Bombay.

And as is inevitable, Sultan starts attracting young men, of a shady persuasion, like moths to flame. Sultan, much like Don Vito Corleone, refuses to deal in drugs or anything that destroys the constitution of a man. He is that ultimate paradoxical cliche - the Honest smuggler.

Now, coming back to that young men of shady persuasion. I'm talking, of course, about Emraan Hashmi's "Shoaib Khan", a character that is, and at the same time, is said to be not, inspired by Dawood Ibrahim. Shoaib Khan has starry and heady dreams of ruling Bombay, and he is willing to take any dirty short cut to reach the top. he starts off as one of Sultan's low rung lieutenants, and works his way up until the inevitable falling out with his mentor, much like Dawood Ibrahim fell out with Haji Mastan.

Simple in terms of story, and powerful, in terms of execution. Milan Luthria extracts some of the best performances seen from his cast in recent times. Ajay Devgn, though he has played the king of the underworld, and other leader-like figures in the past, gives a completely fresh, and spell-binding performance. Kangana Ranaut, as mentioned earlier, plays the role of a 70's glam-doll slash gun moll with superb elan, which is something of trademark. Prachi Desai is serviceable, though she gets a little whiney towards the end. And Emraan Hashmi has given one of his best performances ever, but it is still a bad performance. While Hashmi shows impressive restraint during moments of quiet intensity, he falters when that intensity becomes spontaneous rage. His dialogue delivery becomes strained, his expressions struggle with each other to break out on the face. On the whole, while Emraan Hashmi isn't terrible he isn't convincing either.

A special mention must be made of a cameo put in by Randeep Hooda, who plays his role of a steely eyed cop going after the underworld with brilliance. It is ironic that it was Hooda that played Dawood in 'D-Company'.

And another special mention has to be made of the background score of the film, which is nothing short of gooseflesh-inducing. It is brilliant. It is fantastic. And I love it. The last three sentences hold good when applied to the movie as a whole, too.

Once Upon a Time... is one of those movies that is surely going to have a lot of replay value. No one's complaining, too. Don't miss this movie.

The ugly and awkward truth

2010-01-28T22:05:00.001-08:00

Ram Gopal Varma is one filmmaker who always inspires reaction. Whether it is for his “Devil may care” attitude, whether for being such a master of attention to detail, or for his inspired choice of storylines. RGV has always had a love-hate relationship with the media, and it is evident in his latest film, Rann.

Rann opens with a deftly edited montage reminiscent of a vintage RGV horror flick, and hits the ground running. Like a visual foreword, RGV firmly establishes in the minds of the audience that the average television viewer is the master of the remote control, thus setting up the premise of the movie - the extent to which TV channels would go to get TRPs. There was an incredible amount of buzz surrounding the movie, most of it generated because the movie is centered on the Indian media. Rann, all hyperbole aside, is a gripping film made by a filmmaker who is unparalleled in Indian Cinema. It is a thinking man’s film, and certainly not meant for bored college teens with Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome (ADDS)

Despite the presence of heavyweights such as Amitabh Bachchan and Paresh Rawal, the movie’s central character is Purab Shastri, played by Riteish Deshmukh, a journalist who idolizes Media Baron Vijay Harshvardhan Malik, the Editor in chief of India 24X7, a news channel. As in most of RGV’s films, there are very strong political undertones to the film.

Firstly, what does not work in the film. RGV, in his endeavour to “expose” the media, goes over the board a bit, by making media-centric sequences seem overtly larger than life at times, and as a consequence, unrealistic. In real life, there is a symbiotic relationship between the media, and politics, and it must be said that Ramu has captured it to near perfection. The camera angles, though largely emotive, do get distracting at times. The background score is inconsistent. It is loud and jarring at times, and sometimes, it does its job, that of enhancing the scene. Thirdly, while the media-centric sequences seem larger than life and to an extent, over the top and unrealistic, the scenes involving political leaders, largely, the Prime Minister of the country, and the leader of the opposition, falter, and seem pale in comparison. It is laughable how the Prime Minister of the country moves around with an almost non-existent security detail. The only security that you can see are a couple of cops who look clearly out of place in the khakhi uniform. Television reporters get access to the Prime Minister of the country as easily as they might to a low rung state level minister. In a political gathering that would normally be massive in scale in real life, in Rann, it is relegated to looking like a political meeting of your local neta. Riteish Deshmukh, in his first serious role in a while, starts in a competent way, looks a little too studiously serious, and has but two expressions in the entire film – frown, frown deeper.

With that out of the way, Rann certainly delivers on the pre-release hype. The movie promises as insider’s look into the media, particularly the electronic media, and that’s exactly what it delivers. Rajpal Yadav’s histrionics as the creative editor of a news channel are scarily accurate, though the initial amusement starts waning towards the end.

The attention to detail as far as news production techniques are spot on, and one can expect no less from Ram Gopal Varma. One of the best scenes in the movie is how a television channel takes an innocent comment, edits it to suit their story and ends up making it look incriminating. Paresh Rawal, back in a serious after a long time as the villainous leader of the opposition Mohan Pandey steals the scene everytime he’s in the frame. He is almost larger than life and caricature like, but deadly accurate at the same time. The excellent Rajat Kapoor, in an attempt to play an unscrupulous business magnate, does not quite do justice to his immense talent. In a sequence where he tries to convince someone to take part in a devious conspiracy, he ends up looking almost pleading rather than manipulative and cunning. That said, he does play his role of Sanjay Shankalya largely with panache. Mohnish Behl, making a comeback to the silver screen after a long time, is offered a plum role, and it must be said that he sinks his teeth into it with relish. He clearly looks like he is enjoying the role of Amrish Kakar, the boss of a rival news channel much given to sensationalism. The lovely Neetu Chandra and Gul Panag have little to do. Suchitra Krishnamoorthi does a good job in the limited role she is given. Riteish Deshmukh is serviceable.

Now for the show stealers. Sudeep, who is going from strength to strength, was cast by RGV as Malik’s son, Jai. He more than holds his own against stalwarts like Amitabh Bachchan and Paresh Rawal, and that is no mean feat. At times, his performance falls a little flat, but not enough to take anything away from his fantastic performance. Amitabh Bachchan once again shows the world just why he is called Big B. He is magnificent in his role as a righteous and ethical journalist who is forced to act against principles due to practicalities. He is spot on with his expressions, especially in the scenes where his expression clearly displays the internal conflict between his conscience, sense of logic and strong sense of ethics. He steals the show in the last five minutes with his impassioned speech on the truly deplorable state of the Indian media. One line sums it all up. Where once, for the media, news was the end with money as the medium, now, money has become the end with news as the medium.

Kudos to Ram Gopal Varma for having the chutzpah to take a not so subtle dig at everyone, including himself, and even the celebrated and controversial Ram Jethmalani.

In conclusion, RGV’s Rann definitely has its weaknesses and is not watertight, but it is one of the most gripping films ever made by RGV. RGV shows us once again why he is considered such a master of attention to detail. While the story could have been pacier, the content more than makes up for it. Ram Gopal Varma, after his recent string of flops, has made a come back in grand style. Rann is gripping, serious, intermittently funny and well made

Quantum of Solace

2009-02-06T19:43:00.000-08:00

Daniel Craig's explosive debut as James bond in Casino Royale did nothing short of skyrocket the already high standards set by Sean Connery even higher. The producers followed that up with a movie that's a first in many aspects. The first ever direct sequel in the history of the 46 year old franchise, Quantum of Solace takes place just under an hour after Casino Royale ends, and hits the ground running. The movie begins with a high octane car chase around the picturesque but dangerously curved roads around Lake Como. James Bond is on the run from a Bunch of Mr. White's thugs, with Mr. White secured in the car's boot. The cars swerve in and out of traffic, not quite managing to avoid vehicles coming in from the opposite direction. What i personally liked in this bit was something most people hated. the shaky camera work. The best part about this movie is it's wide open to interpretation, if you have the patience to do so. According to me, the shaky camera work in a way symbolises James Bond's inner turmoil. After all, it was only a few days back that the man lost the girl he loved, a few hours after he discovers she's a traitor.

The car chase ends with James Bond opening fire for the first time during the chase. Everything settles down to David Arnold's pulsating background score. Bond then finally drags Mr. White into an underground interrogation Chamber. The Interrogation is headed by the boss M herself. The interrogation ends not very satisfactorily, with M finding out the hard way that her personal bodyguard is a traitor working for Mr. White's organization. Bond chases the traitor and it ends in an adrenaline charged fight in an art gallery under disrepair. The leads obtained there lead James bond to Haiti. Another brutal fist fight and a dead body later, James bond runs into the female protagonist of the film, the feisty Camille Montes, played by the dishy Olga Kurylenko. Camille is a part of the shady organisation Mr. White works for and she's pursuing a personal vendetta of her own - to kill deposed Bolivian Dictator General Medrano for what he did to her family. This kicks off another exciting James Bond adventure that is high on action and deep on symbolism.

Many people have claimed they have been unable to make either head or tail of the plot. Ina nutshell, here it is. James Bond, while wanting revenge, is also keen to uncover more details about the organization that killed Vesper Lynd. Camille, is after General Medrano because he tortured and killed the rest of her family. so she infiltrates Dominic Greene's organisation, just to get close to Medrano. Now you might ask what connection Dominic Greene has with General Medrano. Greene is part of the shadowy criminal organisation, Quantum that James Bond is after. His plot is to take over the world's most precious resource, water. He has salted away most of Bolivia's water supply and literally holds the country to ransom. The deposed dictator, General Medrano strikes a deal with Greene, giving him what he wants for helping him back to power. Greene also strikes a deal with the CIA, who're led to believe they're in for a supply of oil. General Medrano thinks likewise, that Greene is after oil. Dominic Greene never explicitly committed to anything even close to oil, which underlines his genius. Now, since all these are interwoven so intricately, they all rush towards an explosive finale.

Director Marc Foster, more than anything, has thematically showed James Bond's journey towards solace in this movie. Nothing is explicitly said. Everything is implied. In that, Quantum of Solace is absolutely brilliant. Firstly, There are major action sequences, mostly chase and fight sequences in all four elements - Earth, Water, Wind and Fire. This, very subtly underlines Mr. White's audacious claim during the interrogation, "We have people everywhere". then throughout the movie, we see hints of James Bond clinging on to the past, without ever explicitly saying it. Initially, while he stoutly denies Vesper is important, we see him slyly pocketing a photograph of Vesper and her lover, Yusef Kabeera. Later on in the movie, Bond is sitting at a bar in an airplane, getting drunk, unable to sleep and staring blankly at the photograph and Vesper's Algerian Love knot necklace. We finally see that James bond has literally let go of the past, when we see the necklace in the snow as the picture fades into black. James Bond has achieved closure.

Just before the climax sequence in the desert, we see a lingering shot of a reptile curling itself around a rock, sunning itself. It's so reminiscent of Ian Fleming. Fleming would have described this sequence in great detail in page one of his book, if he were still alive. Lastly, James bond drags Dominic Greene from the car and leaves him alone in the middle of the desert with nothing but a can of motor oil. While he never says it out loud, James bond has given Greene a choice. He can either choose to die of thirst, like he's caused the deaths of a lot of Bolivians, or he could choose to swallow the motor oil and choke to death, just like he caused the death of Agent Strawberry Fields.

Now, coming to the performances themselves, Daniel Craig is nothing short of magnificent as James Bond, fast becoming, if he hasn't already, the best ever actor to take over the role. I have expressed my views on the same, and now reiterate them. Daniel Craig is a phenomenal actor and fleshes out the character like it has never been done before. He is the best. Period.

Coming to the bond girl, if you thought Vesper Lynd was a strong Bond girl, take a good look at Camille Montes. She pursues her goal, that of killing the General with a ferocity and bloody minded determination seldom seen before in the series. She is very rarely distracted from her path and we can see by the anguish that is etched deep into her face when she tells Bond about her tragedy, that it haunts her for every moment that she is awake, the only respite coming in the moments when she's sleeping, if she manages to sleep.

One of the most profound and satisfying sequences of the film was played out between James bond and Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Gianinni). Mathis is lying on the road, bleeding to death, when James Bond holds him in his arms, to make the passing on a bit more comfortable. Then when he is dead, you can clearly see James bond is fighting hard to hold his tears back even after he dumps Rene Mathis' lifeless body into a nearby garbage dumpster, Mathis' last words ringing in his ears, "Forgiver Her....vesper....forgive yourself!"

This gets even better in the final sequence. James bond is awaiting Yusef Kabeera in an apartment in Kazan, Russia. He's ready with his Walther PPK, knowing very well that one quick bullet to the head would put an end to his pain. then after James Bond warns off Yusef's latest conquest, Corrine, Yusef looks at bond, fear writ large all over his features and he whispers, "Please! Make it quick!". In that instant, James Bond realises that a quick death would serve no purpose. He walks out of the building a while later and is greeted by a waiting M. "Is he still alive?" she asks. when he replies "Yes.", "I'm surprised!", she remarks in response. The audience titters away, their attention span only sufficient to last them the duration of an already too short movie. They fail to realise that she's surprised James Bond left him alive because she knows what this man has put James bond through, that this man is singlehandedly responsible for the death of James Bond's true love.

As James Bond is walking away into the darkness, away from it all, M, in a desperate plea, says "I need you back Bond.". James bond looks over his shoulder, a small smile playing on his lips. We slowly see him returning to the spy we saw in Casino Royale, that very embodiment of the literary and cinematic James Bond that has endlessly fascinated the world for close to 5 decades and will continue to do so for more decades to come. We know James bond has truly arrived when the iconic gun barrel flashes across the screen. James Bond has earned his stripes.

Madness is like gravity..

2008-10-28T07:23:00.000-07:00

Well over three months after its release, i'm yet to get over The Dark Knight. I did not quite know what to expect when i walked into the cinema hall on the evening of the 18th this July. Then the film began and this is an honest attempt to sort the jumbled mess in my head into some sort of coherent ramblings of a fan..

First of all, if the late and lamented Mr. Heath Ledger was still alive, i would ask him to take a bow. I, like all others before me, would like to begin discussing The Dark Knight with the villain, The Joker, played with such delicious malevolence by Heath Ledger.
Watching this film makes us all feel acutely for Heath Ledger's death. Every moment The Joker is on screen is spell binding and riveting. Right from the first moment the joker is revealed in all his gory splendour on screen and says the first of the several memorable lines, "I believe...whatever doesn't kill you, simply makes you stranger"

Heath Ledger has completely immersed himself into this role. Look as hard as you might but you will fail in finding the golden haired actor with the rich baritone. You will, however, discover an an anarchic criminal mastermind, who spins the people around him into an inescapable web of lies and murder, deceit and terror...all in their rawest, most primeval forms. Like the director has been insisting all along, we get The Joker as a finished product, we dont get any clever little origin story explaining either his cracked make-up, or his scars......now wait a minute....did i just say scars?

I'm sure the two of you who still haven't watched The Dark Knight would like to know how the joker got his scars....too bad, you gotta watch the movie. Twice does the joker give us a tale about how he got those scars, and it is on the second time around do we realize that The Joker is a brilliant psychopath who's just making the tales up as he's telling them. That it's just a tool he's employed to paint the audience with more ambiguity as to his origins. The Joker also delivers some of the best lines in a movie ever. Heath Ledger has delivered a performance to last a lifetime and quite easily the best screen villain in all time. All the hype and hoopla surrounding the Dark Knight and Heath's performance has been justified, as has all the oscar Buzz. At the very least, Heath Ledger deserves to be handed the Academy Award for the best supporting actor, if not for the best actor.

Reluctantly moving on to Christian Bale's equally significant and brilliant performance. As Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale manages to brilliantly switch between the playboy billionaire nobody seems to take seriously and the man who's dealing with a lot of pain, a tortured soul fighting two battles at once. On one hand, as the Batman, he must fight the "scum of Gotham's underbelly (thanks Alfred!)", and on the other hand, he must fight the temptation to completely lose the Bruce Wayne facade and completely immerse himself into who he really is......The Batman.

Bale does a magnificent job in conveying all the emotions through mere expressions. Next up is James Gordon, played with wonderful subtlety by by the ever reliable Gary Oldman. Oldman plays the character with a quiet sense of suffering and unshakeable integrity and sense of justice. Discounting the buffoon that Commissioner Gordon was portrayed to be in the previous Batman films, this is the real deal. The best line of the whole movie, the best dialogue sequence, rather, is Gordon's epic speech at the very end of the movie....."A silent guardian....a watchful protector......a Dark Knight."

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, though having nothing much to do, shine in their few brief moment of screentime. Special mention must be made of Maggie Gyllenhaal, who displays incredible maturity in handling the more difficult emotions during her final moments in the film, a feat Katie Holmes would never have pulled off. Kudos to Nolan and co. for the move.

Aaron Eckhart plays the American Symbol of hope quite easily. Dubbed Gotham's "White Knight", he brings fresh hope to gotham city. The standout of the whole performance is the way he displayed his slowly deteriorating mental condition throughout the m0vie- from a completely unflapable district attorney to a raving madman. It can be no secret that Harvey Dent eventually becomes the villain called the Two-Face and his transformation is masterfully displayed here.

The magnificent score by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer makes a great movie truly epic. The music adds a dark atmosphere to the movie.

By the end, the future for gotham is very bleak and can make fans like me only look forward to the next with growing impatience. Come awards season, i fully expect The Dark Knight to make away with all the top honours. At the very least, an Oscar for Heath Ledger and for the best original score...

note:- This "rambling" is dedicated to Heath Ledger. RIP (1979-2008)

A Quantum Of Solace.......finally

2008-01-24T20:13:00.000-08:00

After weeks.....nay.....days of speculation, the cat is finally out of the bag. The 22nd Big screen James Bond adventure, a.k.a. Bond 22, helmed by Marc Forster, with Daniel Craig playing James Bond, is to be called QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

In a press conference attended by the producers, the director and the principal cast, the title was finally revealed. Quantum Of Solace was taken from the title of an Ian Fleming short story from the book, For Your Eyes Only. Literally translating to a "degree of peace", the title, though not quite as flashy as a few other BOnd movie titles, makes a lot more sense when one thinks of what James Bond has gone through, and would possibly go through in the movie.

The design of the title is very similar to Casino Royale's title design, where the 'O', from Casino and the 'O', from Royale were positioned strategically above a 7, making it OO7. similarly, the 'O', from Of, and the 'O', from Solace are combined for a similar effect.

Mad? or merely human?

2007-09-06T04:16:00.000-07:00

the 1996 made for TV movie, Rasputin is a lost masterpiece. Almost devoid of big names, with the exception of Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Robin Hood - The Prince of Thieves, Harry Potter series) and Sir Ian McKellen (The X-men trilogy and the Lord of the Rings trilogy). The former plays the (in)famous "Mad Monk", Grigori Rasputin. Rasputin is shown as a pauper initially. When Tsar Nicholas is worried about his Hemophiliac son, Rasputin grabs the opportunity to enter the royal household and mystically cures the boy. That can be called the point where the Romanov family started disintegrating.

This film throws a lot of myths surrounding Rasputin into sharp relief. Was the man really visited by divine visions? or was he merely demented? Did he use holy powers to cure the Tsarevitch? or did he use an advanced form of hypnosis? Were the sessions with the empress merely sessions between priest and devotee? or was there something more.....carnal?

The film never solidifies the mythical elements of Rasputin's story, merely uses them for dramatic effect, and because they're part of folklore. This film, unlike other films, shows us Rasputin the man, instead of Rasputin - the legend. It shows us that Rasputin is merely a human, merely a greedy, unscrupulous human. He seduces wives of noblemen and streetside whores with equal relish. He consumes cheap liquor and royal wine with the same gusto. it makes you sympathise with Rasputin, while making you look upon the man with utter loathing.

Onto the actors themselves. It was an utterly masterful performance as Rasputin by Alan Rickman(right). He's done a fine job of portraying the mad monk and he does it with great gusto and panache. The scene where he's being chased by royalty intent upon murdering him is heartrending. you almost want him to escape. but you know he will not, because it's all part of history. You dont see the mad monk running, you see a man frightened for his life, trying to save it. He creates a beautiful sense of duality when he's playing out the scenes in which the monk had his "visions". On one hand, you are made to believe that he is indeed having visions. On the other, you can be pretty damn sure he is "off his rocker", so to speak. Alan Rickman does a very effective job of stripping the Legend of all its myth and presenting the man, made of flesh and blood.

Sir Ian McKellen plays Tsar Nicholas II, the last monarch from the ill fated Romanov family. McKellen portrays the character as a gentle man, who, out of love for his wife and children, and out of anguish for his ailing son, loses grip on ruling the country. This, wrongly interpreted, makes the people of his country think he's a tyrant with no regard for his subjects and thus, sows the seeds for the great Russian Revolution. The scenes with his wife, Tsarina Alexandra, played by Greta Scacchi, are filled with tenderness. They make you feel like you're actually intruding upon a real couple's private moments.

Every scene is filmed with a sense of reality. The scene where the whole Romanov family is massacred is shown in all it's brutality. You want to wrench your eyes away from the screen, but you are riveted. It's made all the more effective as it's shown in slow motion black and white.

Beautiful film. If you're a fan of gripping storytelling, this movie's for you. if you're not, even then this movie's for you.

James Bond

2007-03-18T09:00:00.001-07:00

Came across a James Bond online test the other day. took it and to my delight, here's the result

Your results:
You are Daniel Craig

Daniel Craig		80%
Timothy Dalton		70%
Roger Moore		55%
Pierce Brosnan		52%
George Lazenby		42%
Sean Connery		37%

The sixth actor to play Bond in the movies promises to be a more realistic, down to earth and not so perfect James Bond, while still being a sexy womanizer.

Click here to take the James Bond Personality Test

what do u know!!

The name's Bond....James Bond

2006-12-15T22:12:00.001-08:00

so here we are again....

been a long time, i know

so anyway.....after a delayed release in hyderabad, Casino Royale finally hit the theatres on December 1st.

We know the moment we set eyes on Daniel Craig that James Bond is truly back. its been 44 years in the making, but the wait was truly worth it. James Bond has come to life on the big screen.

The thing with all of the previous actors succeeding Sean Connery was, while Connery set the tempo for James Bond on screen, the other actors have, in one way or the other, tried to emulate Connery. The haven't really brought their own signature to the role. Timothy Dalton was perhaps the first actor to be different, but even he fell into the trap as the movie wore on.
Daniel Craig is different. In fact, he took a huge gamble, and it paid off beautifully. Craig is a perfect mix of the best qualities of two of the best Bond actors. He's got the confidence, the arrogant swagger, the masculinity of Sean Connery, the intensity, the ruthlessness of Timothy Dalton. He's the perfect James Bond, just as Ian Fleming envisioned him. and man...Craig has done a brilliant job. we can literally feel Craig changing from an inexperienced, raw agent to a semblence of the smooth, confident James Bond we've become accustomed to seeing. There's a scene, where, after Vesper Lynd dies, we can see the expression slowly changing on Craig's face. he's finally shutting down all emotions. my personal favorite is the scene towards the end, we see THE James Bond, uttering the iconic, "The name's Bond...James Bond." I'll say this, James Bond was created solely for Daniel Craig. Truly masterful performance.

then we have Eva Green. The Beautiful, and mysterious Bond girl, Vesper Lynd. For once, we have a Bond girl full of substance. She matches James Bond word for word, swipe for swipe. She end's up being a traitor, and a liar, but then , circumstances had a strong say in that. We can feel her warming upto Bond as the movie progresses. There's a mysterious, enigmatic quality about her initially. Though she makes an effort to seem interested in the proceedings, she's curiously detached. Brilliant Bit of acting. And being a french actress, she does a fair impression of a British accent. There's a scene where she's getting dressed in front of a mirror. She looks heartbreakingly beautiful there.

Le Chiffre, the villain. The original Bond villain. Played brilliantly by the danish Mads Mikkelssen. He's got several subtle touches that exude nastiness. things like his one blind eye, and his weeping blood. but like he says "Weeping tears is due to a derangement of the tear duct, nothing sinister" Le Chiffre is pure evil, deliciously evil. But he becomes weak and vulnerable when confronted by those more powerful than him. One more subtle little touch is his inhaler. Perfect.

now, onto the movie itself. The writers have done a brilliant job in keeping the basic plotlines intact and contemporarising them to fit the present day. Its a non stop juggernaut rolling on, decimating all the non supporters in its path and leaving ruins in its wake. Brilliant movie. I'll be very disappointed if Daniel Craig doesnt win an award for his groundbreaking performance as the Iconic James Bond. He's been contracted for three movies as of now. But the job's his for as long as he wants it. Lets just hope he does keep it for a while. Craig's got an interesting job. his three movies are something like a trilogy, and Craig's gonna show us and take us through James Bond's Learning curve, from a rookie agent to the master spy. Can hardly wait for his next movie to come out. Daniel Craig, you are James Bond

an 'Oskar' winning list.......

2006-10-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

Schindler's List.......director Steven Spielberg's haunting masterpiece on the holocaust. Brilliant movie, this. Each of the actors outdoes himself in this movie. they all tapped into that innermost reserve of brilliance. everybody, scriptwriters, director, producer and actors....everybody. And Schindler's List was the result. One of the few movies based on true incidents to have turned out so beautifully.

For those unfamiliar with the holocaust, during World War II, under the orders of Adolf Hitler, millions of jew were massacred in Germany. it was during the holocaust that a rule was passed. Because of the war, predictable, Germany's economy faltered. And whoever owned an industry was seen as wokring for the improvement of the economy and certain priveleges were granted to them. Also, all they could employ Jews rather cheaply to work for them, thus solving the problem of labour and workforce. there was one tiny little flaw in this rule that was soon to become the driving force behind one man's actions. The Jews that were on the payroll of an industry were exempt from termination by the military.

Schindler's List is about an industrialist. Oskar Schindler. initially seen as somewhat greedy and profit-minded, though essentially a good man. He recognizes the flaw in the above mentioned rule, and bribes his way into the good books of the german officers and thus starts employing Jews so that he can make bags and bags of money for little effort. He soon establishes a Utensil industry. he takes on a man called Izhtak Stern, a jew, as his accountant. Schindler becomes friends with a German officer, Amon Goeth. Goeth turns out to be an evil, ruthless, utterly cold-blooded man. He's in charge of a concentrated camp. He can be seen killing a lot of jews in the camp for sport. gradually, Shindler realizes the inhuman traetment the jews face, and with the help of the kindly Izhtak stern, proceeds to get as many jews off the terminal list as possible by taking them under his employment. it all makes up to be a riveting movie. the sketchy outline i've provided hardly does justice to the movie, but thats the best i can do without reducing my readers to a sleepy stupor.

Liam Neeson plays Oskar Schindler. He plays the character with his considerable charm. and it shows. We find ourselves drawn to this enigmatic man with all his irresistable charm. He is initially self centred, not bothered about the plight of his employees, namely, the jews. but as the days pass by, he is increasingly tormented by the sight around him. he gets desperate to save as many jews as possible by employing them. And for this, he has to bribe a number of officers with a lot of gifts. All this anguish is brilliantly put forward by Liam Neeson in a truly masterful performance. There's a heart-rending scene towards the end where Schindler laments that he couldnt save more Jews. he looks at his watch, his car, his various other possessions and gives out a heart-breaking cry, that he could've given these off and bought more jews off. this scene would move the hardest of us to tears.

Ralph Fiennes has shown us over the years what a versatile and brilliant actor he is. he plays a gentle, lovesick character as deftly as he plays a murderous villain. he'll most probably be remembered for playing Lord Voldemort in the harry Potter series. here, he plays another murderous, evil man, Amon Goeth. Fiennes' performance here is perfectly, brilliantly evil. His very presence is evil. Yet, there's something in his manner that's disarmingly charming and innocent. He commits atrocities with the innocence of a child. you cannot help but despise him, but, there's a corner of your heart which forces you to like him, if only a wee bit. there's a scene where he's in bed with his mistress. he casually gets up, lights a cigarette, picks his rifle up and shoots dead four jews in the concentration camp. if you're a jew, and u sneeze in front of Amon Goeth, u're shot dead. If your shoulders are not upright, you're shot dead. the only reason Amon Goeth needs to kill is a Jew. And Ralph Fiennes does a brillaint Job here.

Ben Kinglsey plays the demure, dimmunitive clerk, Izhtak Stern. there's always an impression throughout the movie that Ben frequently underplays himself. In a few scenes, there's a few brief flashes of Ben's "Gandhi". but the overall performance is strikingly effective. he is very effective indeed as the gentle, very sharp clerk, who silently manipulates Oskar Schindler, changing him from a money driven man to the man who would go on to save hundreds of jewish lives. so in a way, Izhtak Stern is one of the heroes, along with Schindler. You feel sorry for him. You feel sorry for the jews. you feel sorry for everyone in the movie except the germans.

the music is brilliant. every note, every piece of music is brilliantly written. it carries the sombre mood of the movie to the end. its powerful, slow and melancholy, exactly what was required for a movie this serious. the brilliance of the director in the choice of the Black & White, which, perfectly sets the mood for the period the movie is set in, as well as gives it a Film Noir touch to it, very nostalgic indeed. Steven SpielBerg is a director, who, when he can think beyond CGi and computer generated special effects, is brilliant. Proving that point, movies like Schindler's List, Catch Me Is You Can, the recent Munich are in evidence.

All in all, Schindler's List, for me is one unforgettable movie. it is tragic at times, deeply moving and totally rivetting.

until i write again, Adios!

The "Legend" of Troy...........

2006-10-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

I never for the life of me could understand why the great war was called the Trojan War. cuz the Trojan's dont win. they get screwed........royally!! (pardon the pun) and mind u, this turmoil was all back when i was 10 yrs old. i then told myself that it was called Trojan War as the Trojans were the bad guys. or so i thought!! i lived happily with this notion for several years. as far as my information went, Achilles, the demi god, was awesome. King Agamemnon(top left) was this noble, and powerful king. Menelaus was the vengeful husband, which is understandable. after all......which husband wouldnt turn murderous when his wife was stolen by a pip-squeak?? or anyone for that matter? and then,Prince Hector, the Trojan prince...terrifying, powerful and utterly loathesome. Prince Paris.......i dont recall any particular opinion of Paris.......but i do remember thinking of him as a pussy. and then, my favorite...Odysseus........noble, strong, silent and wise.

so like i mentioned.......i lived happily "ever after" with this notion. then i happened to watch Troy!! i mean......."Troy", the movie by Wolfgang Peterson. now that experience left a bad taste in my mouth. Troy is a brilliant movie in what it manages to achieve. the actors were all brilliant. now.......after watching Troy........the points of view i had were taken by the throat, shaken violently, and then put down, looking distinctly ruffled and different. all of a sudden, King Agamemnon is a slimy, greedy creep. Menelaus, justified though his anger is........is a little gullible. he was foolish enough to believe that his brother was avenging his brother's insult. but the truth is...agamemnon saw this as a window of opportunity to attack Troy, a city he's been itching to attack for god knows how long. Achilles( right).......he's shown to be vain, self obsessed and callous when it comes to others' interests. he's walking with his head in the clouds. and with good reason too. there's only one tiny little problem i have with achilles. how on earth......JUST HOW on earth does he manage to stay so clean shaven throughout the war????

Odysseus is unchanged. he's still the wise, reliable, strong, silent hero. nor has paris changed. he's still a pussy. now, helen, for all her description as a really beautiful woman, does seem interesting. now, all beautiful women seem all the more beautiful when they're silent and poised. now, helen in this movie is rather beautiful, but she seems slightly wooden. she's at her most beautiful when she's speaking. interesting, what? and then.....Paris....the pussy. he's just that. nothing but a coward. he was initially cowardly enough to run away with her. then he was cowardly enough to ask the people of Troy to fight for her, while he watched. and then finally.....he, coward that he is.....shoots Achilles, mortally wounding him, all the while when Achilles was saving Paris' cousin, Briseis. now that is the nadir of cowardice. there's also a scene where Paris foolishly challenges Menelaus to a fight and then runs away from it. that should tell ya..........Paris sucks!!

now we come to the most interesting part. Prince Hector. the oft reviled hector. played by Eric Bana......brilliantly. in this, Hector comes across as a reluctant, tormented hero. he doesnt approve of his brother's actions. nor does he approve of his father, King Priam's decisions based on a bunch of conniving, foolish courtiers. but then, he would not hesitate to strike down those who dare threaten the very existence of Troy, King Agamemnon in this case. You can see and feel his torment as he looks upon his baby son for what we know would be the last time.

Special mention must be made of a few fine points. Brad Pitt does an excellent job as Achilles. His disdain of agamemnon is all too obvious. there's a scene at the beginning of the movie where achilles is asked to hand over a sceptre to his king. Achilles growls, with a sense of disgust, "he's not my king!!". and then, King Priam, played by the legend, peter o' toole, who would be remembered for "Lawrence of Arabia". Peter O' Toole does a great job in his portrayal of King Priam as a senile old man, who was brave aeons ago. The Trojan Horse was brilliantly reconstructed ....as was the destruction of Troy. the haunting background score is just brilliant.....filling us with a sense of melancholy as we watch the destruction of a brave kingdom. all for what? just so that the young pussy of a prince could keep his prize.

the most tragic thing about troy is, we begin feeling good about a lot of characters. we start liking them. hence it is with a sense of sadness we watch the movie, as.....we know about the ultimate fate of these characters. if u ask me, i didnt want Hector and Achilles to die, but i knew they would. i felt helpless. my only saving grace was that my hero, Odysseus would still be alive. and also, Odysseus was played by a fine actor, Sean Bean. Troy is a movie not to be missed. it'll defintely leave an impression on you.

If only.......

2006-09-02T13:16:00.000-07:00

Institutions can be broadly classified into two - those for the mentally challenged and those by the mentally challenged. my college can be thrown into the second category. it is truly an outstanding example of an exercise in banality and foolishness. the college has a striking similarity to the wizard prison from the world of harry potter. on one hand, we have azkaban, run by cloaked, hooded creatures intent on sucking the joy and cheer out of the inmates' lives. and then, we have Aurora, my college. it IS run by creatures, sans the hoods and cloaks, also intent on sucking the joy and cheer out of the students' lives. the ultimate punishment a dementor can mete out is the dreaded "dementor's kiss", where in it sucks the soul out of the victim, through the victim's mouth. are the creatures in aurora thinking of something on the same lines? oh sweet mother of god!!! i hope not. and oh yeah, Aurora and Azkaban, both start with an 'A'......... coincidence? i think not.

and then, we have the chairman of the institution. the so called "exalted" leader of the aurora consortium, Ramesh something or the other. he can be related to the dark lord, lord voldemort. the fact that he's dark skinned helps too. but does he inspire the fear and awe that lord voldemort does? HELL NO!!!!! interestingly enough, he does inspire varying degrees of hatred, contempt and disgust. to even think that aurora would take a turn for the better would be an exercise in futility. it has been on a steady decline, with the rate of degradation increasing by the year.

firstly, they have dumb people making up dumber rules. like students have to wear only formals. true, the idea behind it is noble enough. they want the students to look professional. but then, the noble idea turns out to be nobler if only it is implemented properly. the so called 'formal dress code' of the students is flouted by the students in an interesting way. the guys are seen wearing all kinds of garish colors, floral patterns, hawaiian shirts possible. as long as they tuck their shirts in, who's to question them? then, we are forced to wear our ID cards. they look more like dog tags than like identity cards, which, sadly, kind of beats the purpose of the Id cards. i bet the lecturers are seriously contemplating on shouting commands like "fetch!", or "down boy, down", "sit!", "good dog" in the not so distant future. and the kind of setting the college is in. completely cut of from civilization, just past bhongir (which is NOT civilization), "amidst lush greenery, scenic mountain ranges and serene surroundings" cut the crap!!! who am i kidding?? all i see around my college is desolation., dust and more dust. and oh yeah, throw in a few hills, stinking plants, and volla!!! there u are.

the college prospectus describes the canteen as "a place where students can get together to enjoy baked goodies and yaddayaddayadda" i can wager my life's savings (amounting to exactly zilch) that every third plate of noodles ordered has a poor unsuspecting member of the insect kingdom trapped....caught unawares.., no doubt surprised. but i actually envy the poor critter, for it has been liberated from this cess pool.

the more time i spend in the college, the stronger is a particular vision i keep having. call it second sight. call it the future. or call it having way too much free time on my hands. i see myself trapped in the college. some unseen force hunting me down. i run, frantically trying to escape........i see no way out, finally run out onto the terrace.....i see armies of lecturers, converging on me, some with id cards in their hands, some with the "college handbook", but most just with their arms stretched out. i look to the heavens, my mouth wide open in a silent scream.........as darkness creeps into my vision, i think...."why god??? WHY?????"

HAHAAAAAA..............

2006-08-17T08:04:00.000-07:00

for all u daniel craig detractors out there......look at this pic.......
and this.....
and finally, this one........

looks awesome, what say?

An offer you shouldnt refuse......

2006-08-14T07:13:00.000-07:00

to about 90% of the world's movie going population, the word "mafia" invokes the image of Marlon Brando, with a rose in the button hole, looking melancholy. indeed, i'm talking about marlon brando from The Godfather. there's a divided opinion on which one is the greatest American movie ever made. some say is Citizen Kane. the rest say its The Godfather. the fact still stands. The Godfather still is one of the greatest movies ever made. everything in the movie is just pure, unadulterated brilliance. be it Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone's casual flick of his fingertips across his chin, or Al Pacino's chilling portrayal of Michael Corleone, or James Caan's brash, eager Sonny Corleone. its a fact that only Francis Ford Coppola wanted Al Pacino in the role. none of the others involved in the production wanted him. All the while during the filming, Al Pacino lived in a constant fear of being fired. now imagine this. if he turned out such a brilliant performance when in such a nervous state, how much more brilliant would he have been had he been assured of his job? he would've been as brilliant as he was in The Godfather Part II. he was cold. he was ruthless. he was Michael Corleone. Marlon Brando stands out as the best actor in the movie, it still wouldnt have been half as good without Al Pacino. the transformation of Michael Corleone from an innocent college boy into a cold, dangerous Don is expertly shown here. by the end of the movie, Michael Corleone has the air of a rattlesnake thats about to strike. the deadly aura around him is very palpable. and who can forget James Caan in the movie? James Caan's Sonny Corleone was exactly as Mario Puzo envisioned him. brash, hot tempered, reckless. but there's some irresistable charm around Sonny Corleone. he's the kinda guy you would wanna turn to when you're in deep trouble. you can always trust him to beat the living daylights out of those causing it. the scene where he kicks the crap out of his brother-in-law is just amazing. also, the scene in which he is murdered by a few gun toting gangsters is one of the most brutal scenes every filmed. you can see pieces of bone and flesh flying around. and then, The Godfather is one of the few movies that ever lived up to the hype generated by the book. the director, Francis Ford Coppola preserves the dark, brooding undertones of the book beautifully. the movie has a dark, foreboding look to it. the actors dont look like they're acting. they're like real people leading fantastic lives.

even though Marlon Brando plays the titular godfather. in essence, Michael Corleone is the real godfather. the trilogy, infact, chronicles the life of Michael Corloene right from the time he passes out of college, to his rise to power, the way he grabs even more power, and his eventual senility, repentance for all his deeds. first, the young Michael Corleone we see in The Godfather. he starts off as a young man to whom his family just exists. he wants nothing to do with his dad's business. he infact had plans to start teaching mathematics. but then, his dad is attacked in a deal gone sour, and Michael Corleone gets hurled violently into the mix of things. he chooses to "eliminate" the guy cauing all the problems. but inspite of all this, he still wanted to stay away from the family business. he goes to Sicily, falls in love with a girl and marries her. but she is killed and this is when Michael Corleone truly becomes a Corleone. all the initial uncertainty, then later the cold rage and finally, the cold, proud display of power is just perfectly portrayed by Al Pacino. in one grand stroke, Michael Corleone would eliminate all of his enemies, Phillip Tattaglia, Emilio Barzini who were the heads of the Tattaglia and Barzini crime families. also eliminated is Moe Greene, the man who is blocking the Corleones' move to Las Vegas.

then, in the sequel, Michael Corleone is the youngest don in the country. he is power hungry and more ruthless as ever. he radiates danger, and cold-bloodedness. he is consumed with greed and thirst for blood. none of his enemies would be spared towards the end. but the most shocking thing about the movie is, in the beginning of the movie, an attempt is made on the life of Michael, who has made Nevada his base now. later on in the movie, he finds out that the man responsible for this is Hyman Roth. Hyman roth wants to avenge the death of his Protege, Moe Greene. but towards the end of the movie, Michael Corleone finds out that his brother, Fredo, assisted Hyman Roth in the assassination attempt. he wanted to take control of the corleone family, as, in his view, being the older brother, he had a right. Michael Banishes him from the family, but later lets him back into the fold when their mother passes away. but all this was part of a plan. towards the end of the movie, Michael keeps looking as his brother is executed on his order. now that is so damn convincing, Al Pacino deserved an Oscar.

in the third part, michael corleone is in his late 60's and now his past is coming back to haunt him. he wants to turn legitimate. he turns soft, a far cry from the ruthless young don in las vegas.
after a young blood thirsty gangster, Joey zasa(left) threatens his now peaceful existence. Michael Corleone decides it is time for a successor. unfortunately his son is only interested in music. so he is forced to turn to Vincent Mancini(bottom right, in the background, right), the hot headed, brash, illegitimate son of his eldest brother, Sonny Corleone. Vincent, though, is blessed with the hot, quick temper of his father and the cool, cunning of Michael. as he prepares to take over the family, Michael keeps slipping into despair, haunted by his past deeds, which include the murder of his own brother. finally, Michael Corleone dies alone, in a remote village in Sicily. it was a tragic life. He loses the love of his life, twice. he loses his two brothers, both killed. he loses his daughter to an assassin's bullet. and he finally dies friendless. when in sicily, he lived under the protection of Don tommmasino, who himself falls prey to the same assassin who kills Mary corleone, mike's daughter. near the don's coffin, Michael asks a question in despair, "why're you so loved, and i , so feared?" one of the most brilliant scenes in the movie is when michael acknowledges vincent as his successor. for the reason that he is illegitimate, vincent calls himself Vincent Mancini. here, Michale tells him, "nephew, from this moment on....call youself Vincent Corleone". Brilliant!!!

Al Pacino, in the role of michael corleone and a few others, has cemented his place as one of the world's greatedt actors. truly brilliant!

world records and minnows.......

2006-07-13T09:26:00.000-07:00

what's with Sri Lanka? they look like a bunch of bullies who enjoy scoring copious amounts of runs against weaker teams. before that magnificent game between south africa and australia, sri lanka were the holders of the world record, 398 for something against kenya, in a 1996 world cup game. that was broken in an earth shattering way by Graeme Smith's boys on march 12th, 2006. and now i read one day that sri lanka over haul that score against none other than...........hold your breath!!!!...........here it comes..........netherlands!!!!. all this record is worth is a one sided page in the record books. there was no press coverage, no television coverage, no crowd present. for all i care, this made as much impression as tickling a rhinoceros.

while we are at it about sri lanka, i might as well tell u that i hate sri lanka with all my passion and venom. they're just a bunch of no good losers. yeah well............people argue they're invincible at home and yaddayaddayadda...........but wait, did u look at their overseas record?? its worse than bad, its infact worse than worse. before a freak of nature enabled them to beat england, they got their asses kicked by just about every country they visited except for , bangladesh and zimbabwe, who wouldnt put a scare even into a bunch of pig-tailed schoolgirls.

even during the 2004 champions trophy, Captain Atapattu was cock-a-hoop, "we play good cricket off recently, batsmen are in good form......so is jayasuriya, and bowlers" if this didnt already have me rolling on the ground, i was choking with pleasure when Freddie Flintoff, that lovable english caveman cricketer, blasted them into high heavens and back to Sri Lanka. and then, we have the smiling assassin, muralidaran. this is how his rcent interviews go. "ya i feel i'm in good form etc etc etc. the ppl in the west dont know how it is to come up like me. they dont know how it is to undergo hardships like me..........etc etc etc" i mean, mate.........get a life. and get ur facts right. Australia is somewhere down south, not the west.

i have huge respect for the west indian team. but look at them closely.....a few players, (read dwayne bravo) seem to suggest that human evolution hit the disc brakes in the caribbean. they look startlingly similar to our exalted butt scratching forebearers.

Sachin Tendulkar's back in form.....(YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYAWWWWN!!!!)

some idiot was foolish enough to suggest to me the other day that James Bond could be a modern "krishna avtar"..........no offence, my lord.........but WTF?????

my sympathies are with the victims and the relatives of the victims of the mumbai train blasts. but the newspapers apparently had a field day. they were acting like excited school girls in the presence of Abhishek Bacchan. they're just proud that india has its very own "7/11" now. is there no limit to these reporters and their ideas of sensationalism?

anyway, i'll sign off now...............'til next time, take care, have fun.....bye

The Man..........007

2006-07-11T08:17:00.000-07:00

so here we are again. there's been so much talk about how Daniel Craig doesnt look like James Bond at all. Who on earth knows how James Bond looks like? how can anyone possibly say James Bond looks like this or that? there've been five different actors who've played James bond so far, and i can safely say that no two actors bear even a remote resemblance to each other. When he first created James Bond, Ian Fleming paid an artist to sketch James Bond as he saw it. If u notice closely, with a similar haircut, Daniel Craig will look exactly like this. So for all u Anti-Craig ppl out there, here's BALLS TO YOU!!!!!

thats enough passion for one day. let me now get down to the cold impersonal job of talking about the various avtars of the master spy.

Ian Fleming first introduced James Bond to the world when he released his first novel, 'Casino Royale'. he's written 13 books since, all of whom share their titles with various James Bond movies. basically, James Bond is an intense, brooding soul. he is a killer to the core. but he's a killer with a difference. he doesnt like killing in cold blood, that is, he hesitates killing an unarmed opponent. but he would if he was required to in the line of duty. he does after all carry the "License to Kill". now let me elaborate a little on that point. people generally mistake his number to be "Zero zero Seven". infact, it is "Double O Seven". the "Double Oh" prefix indicates the Licence to kill. to earn his double O stripes, an agent has tokill two specified targets in cold blood. each of the two O's on double O stands for one killing. thats how u earn ur elite double O status. So, in essence, James Bond was a spy. a natural killer.

James Bond had a tragic love life. The first ever girl he falls in love with, Vesper Lynd (Casino Royale) already has a lover. moreover, she turns out to be a traitor and ends up by taking her own life. the second time our 007 falls in love with is Teresa 'Tracy' Vincenzo, the daughter of the head of the notorious 'Unione Corsa', an organization similar to the Equally Notorious 'La Cosa Nostra' or the Mafia. he was called Marc Ange Draco. so Bond gets married to Tracy, but tragically, an hour after the wedding, she gets killed by James Bond's Sworn enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. there were defintely other women, but none with whom 007 was so emotionally involved. James Bond Became so popular with the readers the world over that two gentlemen, by the names Albert R. Broccoli and Henry Saltzman decided to make this into a series. so they started out with Dr.No, starring Sean Connery as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007.

The character has since been reprised by four other actors after Sean Connery. each actor has brought his own "x factor" to the role.

Sean Connery

Sean Connery was the first ever actor to play the famed spy on the screen. infact, many people still call him the best ever James Bond, though i suspect thats only so because he is the first. Connery's James Bond is awesome. he's got a pompous style. he's got the charisma, the masculinity. but he does come across at times as a little crude, which is not surprising, considering the fact that Dr.No was his first ever major acting assignment. so for the fact that Sean's the first ever James Bond, and also that he's really good at it, i would give him a 4 out of 5. Sean Connery has acted as James Bond in six James Bond movies, Dr.No(1962), From Russia With Love(1963), Goldfinger(1964), Thunderball(1965), You Only Live Twice(1967) and Diamonds are forever(1971). For the first five movies, he was the automatic choice as James Bond.but after You only Live twice, he had a disagreement with the producers, he quit the role. But he was soon persuaded to reprise the role for one disastrous last time in Diamonds Are Forever, which stands right up there as one of the worst James Bond movies ever. He also reprised the role in the 1983 unofficial James Bond movie, Never Say Never Again, produced by Kevin MClory.

George Lazenby

When Sean Connery had a disagreement with the producers, he quit the role, which was handed over to little known Australian Model, George Lazenby. this was done resulting in huge public outcry. George Lazenby was James Bond in 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service. while the movie is well liked and respected as one of the best James Bond movies ever, George Lazenby could never really make a mark as 007. there are several reasons attributed to his failure as James Bond. firstly, George Lazenby's bond was extremely wooden, as Lazenby was not one gifted with a wide range of acting ability. he was also expressionless for most of the time. Secondly, George Lazenby took over the role to major public outcry, as Sean Connery was indeed very popular as 007 and the public could never really adjust to the fact that anyone else could be James Bond. Thirdly, George Lazenby was termed as being very "difficult" on the sets. all these eventually led to him being sacked as 007. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, as a James Bond movie is widely respected as being one of the best 007 movies ever. it is also famous as being the only James Bond movie in which James Bond gets married. all in all, i would rate George Lazenby a 2.5 out of 5. George Lazenby was James Bond in the one movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service(1969).

Roger Moore

Roger Moore Took over the role from Sean Connery after the disaster that was Diamonds Are Forever. The series reached an all time low during the Moore Era. James Bond steadily went from bad to worse. Roger Moore's James Bond was anything but serious. he was cheesy, tongue in cheek,. there was the positive side to it as well, that being his undeniable charm, and wit. but thats it. Roger Moore's James Bond was self parodying. it was almost like Moore hated the character and was taking out his frustrations thus. Roger Moore holds the record for playing James Bond in the most number of movies, 7. but this becomes meaningless when one looks at the quality of the movies. they were,to put it mildly, works of extreme crass. they were immature. Roger Moore's James Bond never had that hard edge to him. he could never be taken seriously. like i meantioned earlier, it was like a James Bond spoof rather than James Bond himself. Roger Moore can be credited with having almost made the James Bond Series extinct. for this, i would rate Roger Moore a miserable 2 out of 5. Roger Moore played James Bond in seven movies, all save one qualifying for varying degrees of idiocy. Live and Let die(1973), The Man With the Golden Gun(1974), The Spy Who Loved Me(1977), Moonraker(1979), For You Eyes Only(1981), Octopussy(1983) and A View To A Kill(1985) . i will always hold a special place for The Spy Who Loved Me as it was my first ever 007 movie. i remember watching that movie at the age of 7 and falling in love with the character instantly. it is also the best Roger Moore 007 movie b a long distance. there's no saying which one is the worst roger Moore 007 movie as all the rest are equally bad. but Octopussy has to take the cake . if ever u wanna watch a James Bond parody, watch Octopussy instead of an Austin Powers movie. Austin Powers would seem like a thoughtful, intelligent movie next to this one.

Timothy Dalton

Timothy Dalton is widely respected as being the man that rescued the character from the gloomy depths os the Roger Moore era. Timothy Dalton breathed fresh air into the series. Timothy Dalton's James Bond is often referred to as the "most dangerous bond". his characterisation is the closest to Ian Fleming's James Bond. indeed, his character in Licence to kill was so dark that it was thought to be too violent for a James Bond movie. but the fact still stands, he played a James Bond that was closest in resemblance to the character originally envisioned by Ian Fleming. Timothy Dalton brought a ruthlessness to the role. he finally made James Bond look like he could kill. also, unlike the earlier James Bond movies, his movies didnt get their plots marred by girls. in the earlier movies, well...most of them anyway, girls were introduced only to remind people of the fact that women find James Bond irresistable. but in Dalton's movies, the bond girls are only there because they are absoultely necessary to the movie. infact, people got so used to the earlier portrayals of 007 that they were unable to digest this particular portrayal. they wanted to see the witty, charming, womanising spy, who seemed to do everything under the sun but spy. this is not to say that Dalton's bond wasnt charming or witty. Timothy Dalton was very charming, and witty at times. but there also was a visible dangerous edge to him. for all this and the rescue act, i would rate dalton a very commendable 4 out of 5. Timothy Dalton Played James Bond in only two movies, The Living Daylights(1987) and Licence To Kill(1989). unfortunately, after 1989, the producers were caught up in a long court battle, that put 007 production on halt for six years. by that time Timothy Dalton decided sensibly that he was too old for the role and retired. who knows, given the time, he could've made another 3 movies and made the role his own, giving it his own signature. but he certainly did a fine job in the two movies he made.

Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan can easily be called the best actor to play James Bond so far. he had the style, elegance of Sean Connery, the charm and wit of Roger Moore and the ruthlessness of Timothy Dalton. thank goodness he didnt get the woodenness of Lazenby. he was actually slated to take the role upp in 1986. but he had to back out due to contractual obligations to the then popular TV Show, Remington Steele. infact it was this very show that made Brosnan very popular and put him in running for the role. so then the role was offered to Timothy Dalton. finally when Dalton retired in 1994, the obvious, automatic and popular choice, Pierce Brosnan took over. the Brosnan Era has been the most successful era financially, though a couple of his movies left a lot to be desired. Goldeneye was easily one of the best James Bond movies of all time. if there is something that the Brosnan era has to be blamed for, it is for the fact that the movies made a dramatic departure from the true essence of James Bond. but that is not faulting Brosnan's performance. he shone through the abysmal scripts he was given. his movies though relied a lot on special effects, gadgets and CGI. The World is Not Enough was a slightly better movie than its predecessor. Die Another Day, though commercially the most successful bond film ever made, seemed more like a Sci Fi movie than a 007 movie. it was a piece of trash. and Brosnan was beginning to show signs of being on the wrong side of 50. though Pierce Brosnan was so popular as James Bond, the way he was shown the door has left a sour taste in the mouth. he definitely deserved more respect and honour. Pierce Brosnan will always be remembered as one of the Best James Bond actors ever. for this i rate him a 4.2 out of 5. he played James Bond in four movies, Goldeneye(1995), Tomorrow Never Dies(1997), The World Is Not Enough(1999) and Die Another Day(2002). his reign as James BOnd only came to an end when the producers decided enough was enough and decided to reboot the series and cast a younger actor, who turned out to be Daniel Craig.

Daniel Craig

Pierce Brosnan's rule at the helm came to an abrupt end when the producers wanted 007 to be darker, grittier and more realistic. not that Brosnan couldnt have been all of those things, but they also wanted a younger actor. so to huge public outcry to match the one when sean cionnery quit, he was replaced by Daniel Craig, one of Britain's finest actors. The thing with all of the previous actors succeeding Sean Connery was, while Connery set the tempo for James Bond on screen, the other actors have, in one way or the other, tried to emulate Connery. The haven't really brought their own signature to the role. Timothy Dalton was perhaps the first actor to be different, but even he fell into the trap as the movie wore on.Daniel Craig is different. In fact, he took a huge gamble, and it paid off beautifully. Craig is a perfect mix of the best qualities of two of the best Bond actors. He's got the confidence, the arrogant swagger, the masculinity of Sean Connery, the intensity, the ruthlessness of Timothy Dalton. He's the perfect James Bond, just as Ian Fleming envisioned him. and man...Craig has done a brilliant job. we can literally feel Craig changing from an inexperienced, raw agent to a semblence of the smooth, confident James Bond we've become accustomed to seeing. There's a scene, where, after Vesper Lynd dies, we can see the expression slowly changing on Craig's face. he's finally shutting down all emotions. my personal favorite is the scene towards the end, we see THE James Bond, uttering the iconic, "The name's Bond...James Bond." I'll say this, James Bond was created solely for Daniel Craig. Truly masterful performance. For this, I'd rate him a 5.0 on 5

thats all for now. i know this has been a little long. so i promise u my next post wont be this long. until next time, Ciao

How to clean your toilet the fun way

2006-07-10T09:00:00.001-07:00

this is not my own work. i borrowed it from www.bawandinesh.net

Instructions on how to clean your toilet :

Put both lids of the toilet up and add 1/8 cup of pet shampoo to the water in the bowl.
Pick up the cat and soothe him while you carry him towards the bathroom.
In one smooth movement, put the cat in the toilet and close both lids. You may need to stand on the lid.
The cat will self agitate and make ample suds. Never mind the noises that come from the toilet, the cat is actually enjoying this.
Flush the toilet three or four times. This provides a "power-wash" and rinse".
Have someone open the front door of your home. Be sure that there are no people between the bathroom and the front door.
Stand behind the toilet as far as you can, and quickly lift both lids.
The cat will rocket out of the toilet, streak through the bathroom, and run outside where he will dry himself off.
Both the commode and the cat will be sparkling clean.

Sincerely,
The Dog

of girls, guns and gadgets......

2006-07-10T07:21:00.000-07:00

Funny how things turn out. when James Bond started out onscreen in 1963, he was just a spy. he had only one bond girl and no gadgets whatsoever. infact, he had no gadgets in the next movie. and his body count when it comes to bond girls was a paltry 2, from both movies. infact, James Bond never had more than one girl till the 14th James Bond movie, A View To a Kill, where, a painfully old looking Roger Moore, 58, was sporting two girls young enough to be his daughters by his side. then with that, Roger Moore bid adieu too the role and Timothy Dalton stepped in, and he did a fine job as James Bond, though not very successful. Timothy Dalton(left) is my favorite actor to play James Bond thus far. and Roger Moore would be my least favorite actor. after Licence To Kill was released in 1989, there was a long gap of 6 years. Timothy Dalton decided by then that he was too old, and retired from the role. then, the popular choice for the role, Pierce Brosnan Stepped in, and boy!! did he do a fine job with his role or what. Pierce Brosnan's movies are criticized by most people as being too fantastic and relying too much on special effects and gadgets. but they fail to realize that he had no choice. he was given the script and told to act it out. with the brosnan era, there were two regular Bond girls, one of whom, more often than not, would turn out to be a bad seed. in Goldeneye, Xenia Onatopp, played by Famke Janssen turned out to be a traitor. in The World Is Not Enough it was the turn of Elektra King, played by Sophie Marceau(right), who in my opinion is the most stunning woman to grace the 007 screen. and then, in one of the campiest 007 movies, Miranda Frost, played by Rosamund Pike, turned sour.

one thing that remained constant right from the first movie to the twentieth movie has to be James Bond's trusted little friend, his gun. a Walther PPK. Cute li'l thing really. judge for urself. but the gadgets, they just got crazier and more fantastic. right from a jetpack to an invisible car, James Bond has seen it all. good thing that the producers have denied entry to any gadgets in the upcoming film, Casino Royale. so now James Bond has to rely on his wits, instincts and himself to get out of any tight situation. and here's my prediction, Daniel Craig is gonna rock in this role. He's gonna make the best James Bond there ever was.

in my next post, i'm gonna talk about the man himself, James Bond. i'll be comparing the onscreen character to the literary character. and also on how the onscreen character has changed through 5 actors. until then, cheerio.

The Beginning........

2006-07-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

Most ppl will want to believe they're having a bad nightmare when they have their first look at Daniel Craig, the latest actor to don the 007 persona. I was one of them too. i was experiencing all kinds of emotions ever since i came to know that Pierce Brosnan had been fired as 007. First Disbelief, then anger, and gradually.....resignation. i finally made myself look forward to seeing a new, fresh faced 007. i was following the "Hunt for 007" eagerly for months. All kinds of names were being bandied about. Goran Visnjic, Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman, James Purefoy and Clive Owen being the most celebrated amongst them.

Then, one fine day in october, it was announced that the new oo7 would be unveiled the coming friday, and as you might expect, i was on cloud nine. and then, finally, agonisingly slowly, the moment had come. and what i got wasnt certainly what i wanted, though it indeed was something i was dreading. The Website, www.mi6.co.uk, flashed these words, these very words...."Daniel Craig is James Bond 007". i madly wanted to break something. i joined the army of anti-craig-brosnan-for bond fans. but slowly, i began to realize something. Craig must be having something in him, that x factor, to have attracted the attention of the producers of the bond frachise. By then, i began to accept Daniel Craig. infact, i was forcing myself to like him, as , he was 007, like it or not. and to be frank, he didnt look half as bad when i saw him in a video. Then, the turning point came when i watched one of Daniel Craig's movies. Layer Cake. His performance in the movie floored me. Craig was nothing short of brilliant in that movie. Then i began to see light at the end of the tunnel. i finally saw what the producers were trying to do. of late, in the Brosnan era, the 007 movies started moving away from the essence of 007. the saturation point was with Die Another Day, which while being one of the worst 007 movies ever, was also ironically, the most successful financially. It was a work of extreme foolishness. It was more like a sci fi movie than a spy thriller that a 007 movie is supposed to be. also, the movies gave 007 an image. the image of a gentleman, suave charming, handsome, playboy secret agent. but Ian Fleming, the man who made 007, did not envision James Bond like that.

In his first ever James Bond novel, Casino Royale, he describes 007 as something of a Hoagy Carmichael (see left) who was not, as u can see, all that good looking. so all this nonsense about Daniel Craig not being good looking is plain hogwash. and then, the literary 007 was a hard, gritty, dangerous spy. the closest an actor ever came to portraying the true 007 was Timothy Dalton in his brief stint as the super spy. and this is time to make a note that Timothy dalton was not very successful as 007. the fact is, people want to see 007 as portrayed by brosnan. so all that will come to an end with the 2006 21st James Bond movie, Casino Royale. the producers are taking the series back to its roots. this is going to be a reboot, that is to say, the movie will be set in 2006, but James Bond is just beginning his espionage career. he is a little clumsy, learning his ropes. he's just earned his 007 stripes. this is gonna be a fresh 007 series from here on, Daniel Craig being what Sean Connery is to the on screen James bond. if anyone still doubts me, is suggest u visit this website http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/site/, and check out the teaser trailer for the new james bond movie. believe me, i have this feeling that craig will make the best 007 yet. in the trailer, he does remind me of 007 as ian fleming wanted him to be, not the 007 that we are used to. so people, be prepared for a jolt, a surprising pleasnat shock as the new James Bond arrives this December 15th in india. on that cheerful note, until that time when i wanna bore u guys to tears again, Ciao