That's coz every other movie I have seen of late have been simply super (Million $ Baby, Hotel Rwanda, Monster, even liked Love Song for Bobby Long). Kinsey was not bad, but I probably was a little disappointed that my run of picking the very best movies had finally come to a stop.
Very good acting my Liam Neeson, but there were parts of the movie, which were disturbing - sure was the effect the movie-maker intended for the audience, but not sure if I was upto it. It would make for an interesting debate though - the purpose and role that scientists and funded scientific studies play in society.
While Alfred Kinsey is credited for starting up what ended up being the sexual revolution of the 60's and there was definitely a need for someone to shake things up and bring some taboo topics out in the open, I am not sure his means justified his targetted end.
I liked the way the movie ended - the sexology professor is asked about "love" and he says he is still working on that problem :)
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Monday, January 24, 2005
King Andre
Andre Agassi[8] vs. Roger Federer[1] - Australian Open, Quarterfinal, 7:30pm AEST, Jan 25th
Andre - "This is what I prepare for - to play the best in the biggest of situations. It's why I do this." - came just as I was beginning to wonder what the hell Andre was still doing in the game. Does he seriously think he has Grand Slam #9 in him at the unforgiving age of 34?
While Andre Agassi adds great value to every tournament he participates in, while he will consistently thrill the crowds with quality tennis and attitude, pushing the younger stars all the time, reach Quarter/SemiFinals in great style, does he have it in him to go all the way and beat the young'uns to win a title? A Grand slam? I think not..
BUT, the optimist and the romantic that I am, I want Da King to bow out in style. I want Andre to win a major and call it quits, like his best rival, Pistol Pete did couple of years back.
Federer is an *extremely* talented, well-mannered player who lets his tennis do most of the talking (and frankly, someone who may not been challenged sufficiently by his contemporaries this far). His statements today about Andre seemed quite unlike him -
"I think I've proven myself in the past, and I know my game's good enough. Also on my day where I'm not playing perfect, I know I can beat him. He's not as good as he was when he was at the top of the ranking, otherwise he would be there. Fortunately, I'm there... he has to raise his game, not me."
Hmm..Federer is my favorite player on the men's circuit, but tomorrow, I will be rooting for King Andre!
Andre - "This is what I prepare for - to play the best in the biggest of situations. It's why I do this." - came just as I was beginning to wonder what the hell Andre was still doing in the game. Does he seriously think he has Grand Slam #9 in him at the unforgiving age of 34?
While Andre Agassi adds great value to every tournament he participates in, while he will consistently thrill the crowds with quality tennis and attitude, pushing the younger stars all the time, reach Quarter/SemiFinals in great style, does he have it in him to go all the way and beat the young'uns to win a title? A Grand slam? I think not..
BUT, the optimist and the romantic that I am, I want Da King to bow out in style. I want Andre to win a major and call it quits, like his best rival, Pistol Pete did couple of years back.
Federer is an *extremely* talented, well-mannered player who lets his tennis do most of the talking (and frankly, someone who may not been challenged sufficiently by his contemporaries this far). His statements today about Andre seemed quite unlike him -
"I think I've proven myself in the past, and I know my game's good enough. Also on my day where I'm not playing perfect, I know I can beat him. He's not as good as he was when he was at the top of the ranking, otherwise he would be there. Fortunately, I'm there... he has to raise his game, not me."
Hmm..Federer is my favorite player on the men's circuit, but tomorrow, I will be rooting for King Andre!
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Moooov me!
So I saw the Broadway plan Rent on Friday night. This is my 6th B'way play after Chicago, Aida, Bombay Dreams, Wicked, and Phantom of the Opera.
Why do they always do their contrived best to numb your senses and sensibilities? Am not an authority on the subject (yet), but why doesn't good, serious, realistic theater never make it into Broadway and stay relegated to Off-Broadway?
When I spend all that money, I go in there expecting to be moooooved! That's the effect I expect from a play, movie. While I think I have been choosier at the movies I pick to watch and have had very good experiences with movies over the last few months, I can't say the same of B'way theater.
So, what was the blog-about factor about all these B'way plays?
Chicago - the dance (but having seen the movie before the play, I didn't enjoy it as much, sets leave much to be desired)
Aida - I continue to rate this my best B'way musical so far. Great color, settings, music..the works.
Bombay Dreams - I have a *huge* A.R. Rahman bias (the Indian music director for the musical). I bought the soundtrack the day it hit the stores, loved it, and knew what to expect even before I went to watch it. I liked the 2 percussionists on either side of the stage - one with the tabla and the other on the drums producing some phenomenal sounds.
Wicked - great effects, but they tried the hardest to finish with a happy-ending.
Phantom of the Opera - the best sets, over-rated music (anyone seen the movie?)
Rent - hmm..sets were ok, performances ok, singing was superb, music decent..
So, in the last act of Rent, you have the heroine dying!...well almost...just when I thought I had seen a B'way musical with not such an happy ending...she comes springing back to life after having seen the "warm, white, light" and "Angel was there" (a character in the play who dies of aids) - WHY??!
P.S: For anyone else who has seen the musical, the "moooooov" me is a reference to one of the songs in the musical and the bit where Maureen gets the audience to "moooow" with her...
P.S again: New Brunswick is the theater capital of New Jersey (dont laugh!) - I used to volunteer for the George Street Playhouse and some of the performances there last year were sensational! Gimme some serious, strong performances anyday to witches flying around in mid-air over the audience (Wicked)!
Why do they always do their contrived best to numb your senses and sensibilities? Am not an authority on the subject (yet), but why doesn't good, serious, realistic theater never make it into Broadway and stay relegated to Off-Broadway?
When I spend all that money, I go in there expecting to be moooooved! That's the effect I expect from a play, movie. While I think I have been choosier at the movies I pick to watch and have had very good experiences with movies over the last few months, I can't say the same of B'way theater.
So, what was the blog-about factor about all these B'way plays?
Chicago - the dance (but having seen the movie before the play, I didn't enjoy it as much, sets leave much to be desired)
Aida - I continue to rate this my best B'way musical so far. Great color, settings, music..the works.
Bombay Dreams - I have a *huge* A.R. Rahman bias (the Indian music director for the musical). I bought the soundtrack the day it hit the stores, loved it, and knew what to expect even before I went to watch it. I liked the 2 percussionists on either side of the stage - one with the tabla and the other on the drums producing some phenomenal sounds.
Wicked - great effects, but they tried the hardest to finish with a happy-ending.
Phantom of the Opera - the best sets, over-rated music (anyone seen the movie?)
Rent - hmm..sets were ok, performances ok, singing was superb, music decent..
So, in the last act of Rent, you have the heroine dying!...well almost...just when I thought I had seen a B'way musical with not such an happy ending...she comes springing back to life after having seen the "warm, white, light" and "Angel was there" (a character in the play who dies of aids) - WHY??!
P.S: For anyone else who has seen the musical, the "moooooov" me is a reference to one of the songs in the musical and the bit where Maureen gets the audience to "moooow" with her...
P.S again: New Brunswick is the theater capital of New Jersey (dont laugh!) - I used to volunteer for the George Street Playhouse and some of the performances there last year were sensational! Gimme some serious, strong performances anyday to witches flying around in mid-air over the audience (Wicked)!
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The far West..
Tom Friedman is a writer whose articles (op-ed pieces on nytimes) I have been closely following over the last year or so. His opinions on out-sourcing were excellent, he even went on to create a documentary on that issue. But, his excitement at the idea of spreading democracy in every nook and corner, I don't quite agree with.
Linked below, his latest op-ed - note the bit on Europeans' idea of America. Its hard for me to fathom as well - *how* can abortion be an issue in this country, which can claim to be among the most technologically advanced countries in the world? Tax, gay marriage, health care - all those don't strike me as much, but if *anyone* has a right to decide whether to bring a baby into this world or not, its the mother. HOW can that right be taken away? Interference of religion in matters of the state alright, but even then..can't get myself to quite digest it..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/opinion/20friedman.html?hp
His views on Iran in that article seem shaky..
About the festivities for George W. Bush's (aka W, Dubyah) swearing-in ceremony today - 12 million being spent by the City of Washington DC to provide for the most elaborate security arrangements that DC has ever seen!
P.S: If you don't have a login for nytimes, let me know, and will be glad to email the article/post the full text here. The nytimes membership is free btw..
Linked below, his latest op-ed - note the bit on Europeans' idea of America. Its hard for me to fathom as well - *how* can abortion be an issue in this country, which can claim to be among the most technologically advanced countries in the world? Tax, gay marriage, health care - all those don't strike me as much, but if *anyone* has a right to decide whether to bring a baby into this world or not, its the mother. HOW can that right be taken away? Interference of religion in matters of the state alright, but even then..can't get myself to quite digest it..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/opinion/20friedman.html?hp
His views on Iran in that article seem shaky..
About the festivities for George W. Bush's (aka W, Dubyah) swearing-in ceremony today - 12 million being spent by the City of Washington DC to provide for the most elaborate security arrangements that DC has ever seen!
P.S: If you don't have a login for nytimes, let me know, and will be glad to email the article/post the full text here. The nytimes membership is free btw..
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
..and yeah..
..did I mention that I belonged to the geek fraternity and would post the occassional link from Slashdot?! Just the odd link, I assure you..
This one caught my fancy today: http://www.cinemaonweb.com/ww1/index.php
Not such a well-designed site, but the idea is a good (albeit imminent, someone had to come up with this sooner or later) one. It sure needs a lot more support than just a well-past-his-prime Dev Anand's backing. Webcast a cricket match in good resolution for a decent price, get one major production house to release their movie here, and has the potential to be a huge success. But do I see that happening? - probably not!
Let me know if anyone ends up buying a movie from here..
This one caught my fancy today: http://www.cinemaonweb.com/ww1/index.php
Not such a well-designed site, but the idea is a good (albeit imminent, someone had to come up with this sooner or later) one. It sure needs a lot more support than just a well-past-his-prime Dev Anand's backing. Webcast a cricket match in good resolution for a decent price, get one major production house to release their movie here, and has the potential to be a huge success. But do I see that happening? - probably not!
Let me know if anyone ends up buying a movie from here..
Monday, January 17, 2005
NYC Subway
All of us who have traveled the NYC subway have our favorite subway stories. Most make for a few party laughs, while this one attempts to bring a smile at best, and extract an "awww" from them women maybe.. :)
This happened last week on the R to Manhattan.
This badly-dressed, lanky guy walked in with a big trash-bag hauled over his shoulder. He settled his bag down, dug in and removed some video tapes, and kept them on the seat. Hand into bag again, and removed some jeans. Hand into magic bag again, and out came some caps - he gave them to some mexican kids sitting opposite with their mother (and the family didn't seem to be doing too well, but that is purely judgemental). Next, he removed some stuffed toys from the trash bag and gave it to one of the girls. Then, out came some party accessories like horns and such - gave them to the kids as well. All along he wasn't smiling, completely impassionate face, not even making eye contact with the kids really (who were all grins by now), the whole thing done with a focussed face almost. The train was coming to the next stop, he quickly put in the jeans and video tapes back into his bag, and ..like_that_he_disappeared!
This happened last week on the R to Manhattan.
This badly-dressed, lanky guy walked in with a big trash-bag hauled over his shoulder. He settled his bag down, dug in and removed some video tapes, and kept them on the seat. Hand into bag again, and removed some jeans. Hand into magic bag again, and out came some caps - he gave them to some mexican kids sitting opposite with their mother (and the family didn't seem to be doing too well, but that is purely judgemental). Next, he removed some stuffed toys from the trash bag and gave it to one of the girls. Then, out came some party accessories like horns and such - gave them to the kids as well. All along he wasn't smiling, completely impassionate face, not even making eye contact with the kids really (who were all grins by now), the whole thing done with a focussed face almost. The train was coming to the next stop, he quickly put in the jeans and video tapes back into his bag, and ..like_that_he_disappeared!
Golden Globes be damned!
Having watched the maximum number of movies last year, as opposed to previous years, thought would take a shot on what would be MY picks last yr (this is totally based on movies I saw last yr..).
So here we go, Vj's picks (note that its just one main category, I dont agree with the idea of breaking it down by drama vs. comedy to send more celebs back home happy):
Best Actor: Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda - wonderful movie & a job very well done by Don Cheadle, he carried the movie completely on his shoulders..)
Best Actress: Hillary Swank vs. Kate Winslet - Hillary Swank (Million $ Baby)
Best Director: Clint Eastwood (I actually attended the red-carpet premiere of Mystic River & saw the celebs within 6-ft distance; Laura Linney's beauty was radiant! His dark movies with a subtle positive underlying theme in both movies was interesting.)
Best Supporting Actor: Jamie Foxx (Collateral. 2004 may be the year when Jamie Foxx finally arrived, he definitely deserved an award last night..)
Best Supporting Actress: Natalie Portman (Closer. She, along with, Scarlett Johansson are 2 young actresses who are very talented AND look stunning!)
..hopefully the Oscar guys are reading.. :)
Awards apart, what was my favorite movie last year - would have to be between Kill Bill 2 and this indie documentary called, Born Into Brothels (http://www.bornintobrothels.org).
So here we go, Vj's picks (note that its just one main category, I dont agree with the idea of breaking it down by drama vs. comedy to send more celebs back home happy):
Best Actor: Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda - wonderful movie & a job very well done by Don Cheadle, he carried the movie completely on his shoulders..)
Best Actress: Hillary Swank vs. Kate Winslet - Hillary Swank (Million $ Baby)
Best Director: Clint Eastwood (I actually attended the red-carpet premiere of Mystic River & saw the celebs within 6-ft distance; Laura Linney's beauty was radiant! His dark movies with a subtle positive underlying theme in both movies was interesting.)
Best Supporting Actor: Jamie Foxx (Collateral. 2004 may be the year when Jamie Foxx finally arrived, he definitely deserved an award last night..)
Best Supporting Actress: Natalie Portman (Closer. She, along with, Scarlett Johansson are 2 young actresses who are very talented AND look stunning!)
..hopefully the Oscar guys are reading.. :)
Awards apart, what was my favorite movie last year - would have to be between Kill Bill 2 and this indie documentary called, Born Into Brothels (http://www.bornintobrothels.org).
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Welcome!
After much dilly-dallying, finally take my plunge into the wonderful world of blogging!
What can you expect to find here - hmm.. - sports, politics, movies, music, my random musings on life (yeah rite!), my reflections on "the city so nice, it has to be spelt twice; New York, New York" (Al Pacino, Devil's Advocate), my perspective-from-a-distance of my hometown, Bangalore, samples of my quirky sense of humor (if u dont get it, *ask*!), and just anything that I feel like subjecting y'all to!
Here I go, ramble on...!
What can you expect to find here - hmm.. - sports, politics, movies, music, my random musings on life (yeah rite!), my reflections on "the city so nice, it has to be spelt twice; New York, New York" (Al Pacino, Devil's Advocate), my perspective-from-a-distance of my hometown, Bangalore, samples of my quirky sense of humor (if u dont get it, *ask*!), and just anything that I feel like subjecting y'all to!
Here I go, ramble on...!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)