I finally watched 'Watchmen' - and as a fan of the comic, I was glad to see the original plot hadn't been twisted beyond all recognition - barring a major plot device (altered sensibly, methinks) which I will leave readers to find out.
Yes - the movie was long (don't see how they could have stuck to the original storyline without shortening the movie), but I think a lot of the disappointed reviews have come from folk who equated comic-based movies with action flicks... whereas 'Watchmen' goes deeper (a lot deeper!) than that.
NOTE: be warned - the film *is* violent... and graphic with it!
The opening credits (accompanied by Bob Dylan's 'The times, they are a-changing) can be found @ http://nextround.net/2009/03/09/watchmen-opening-sequence/
And for those who didn't watch the movie (for whatever reason) - you missed finding out who killed JFK! (Hint: Yes, the shot came from the grassy knoll!) ;-)
Year of Release: 2009
IMDB Rating: 8.0/10 (73,554 votes, as at the time of posting)
PS - I also came across this animation - "Rorschach's friends to the animals"... LOL!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The 'Pigeon' rules the roost - even at the very end
The retirement of McGrath marks the end of an era in Australian quick bowling; that he wound up as the player of the series in the 2007 World Cup bears testament to the commitment he showed, enabling him to go out on top.
Never express, often metronomic, always thinking (and shaking his head), I've seen him convince far too many Sri Lankan batsman to nick one to the keeper or slips; as much as Australia will miss McGrath, other teams will breathe a sigh of relief.
Never express, often metronomic, always thinking (and shaking his head), I've seen him convince far too many Sri Lankan batsman to nick one to the keeper or slips; as much as Australia will miss McGrath, other teams will breathe a sigh of relief.
Cricket World Cup 2007 - Final - SL vs. Aus
After a heartening performance throughout the tournament, Sri Lanka were swept aside by Australia, who won their third straight World Cup.
Faced with a good batting pitch to bowl on first, the Sri Lanka bowling turned out well below par, with only Lasith Malinga (and that too only in his first spell) looking to curb the Australian batting. After Gilchrist got after Vaas, a big start was assured; Sri Lanka did well however to pull the scoring back to allow an Australian total of 281, which at one time threatened to get up to about 310. Gilchrist's century (149) was brilliant, more so given that he was out of form coming into the final; he was a clear choice for the man of the match. The Sri Lankan attack was nowhere as disciplined as in the earlier stages of the tournament, giving 16 wides and 3 no balls. Curtailing the extras and bowling a tighter line would have kept Australia closer to 250, which would have allowed Sri Lanka to pace their innings a little less frenetically.
The Sri Lankan chase was perhaps a little too slow at the start, but Jayasuriya (63) and Sangakkara (54) clearly batted to a plan. However, the climbing asking rate accounted for several wickets leaving Sri Lanka totalling 215-8 in an end made controversial by some poor umpiring. Mahela Jayawardena, in a gracious gesture agreed to bat the overs through without excacerbating an already confused situation.
Overall, Australia were so dominant that it probably mattered little whether Sri Lanka batted first or last. Much is being made by Sri Lanka supporters of Gilchrist carrying a squash ball in his glove to help him with his grip, which sounds a lot like sour grapes; their argument is based on this giving Gilchrist an unfair advantage (if not illegally, at least unethically). To be fair, I trust this argument would extend to Sri Lankan cricketers wearing 'pirith nool' or Dilhara Fernando or Chaminda Vaas making the sign of the cross, with any divine help being provided thereafter being put down to an unfair advantage.
During the recent Indian tour, I felt Sri Lanka had to pull together far more to mount a credible challenge at the World Cup - this they did, at times brilliantly so. However, my second concern was how well the Sri Lankan bowling would fare when under fire - and sadly were found wanting in this most crucial of matches.
Looking to the future, if Sri Lanka are ever to be as dominant as the Australians have been of late in world cricket, they must look to win all their matches, getting the win rate up as close as possible to 100%. If they do this, World Cups and other trophies will follow automatically, I believe. The Sri Lankan team showed the right ingredients in playing with passion, pride and skill, showing both individual excellence and great team spirit. Given that this performance was away from home, it probably ranks even higher than the 1996 World Cup winning performance.
Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo
Faced with a good batting pitch to bowl on first, the Sri Lanka bowling turned out well below par, with only Lasith Malinga (and that too only in his first spell) looking to curb the Australian batting. After Gilchrist got after Vaas, a big start was assured; Sri Lanka did well however to pull the scoring back to allow an Australian total of 281, which at one time threatened to get up to about 310. Gilchrist's century (149) was brilliant, more so given that he was out of form coming into the final; he was a clear choice for the man of the match. The Sri Lankan attack was nowhere as disciplined as in the earlier stages of the tournament, giving 16 wides and 3 no balls. Curtailing the extras and bowling a tighter line would have kept Australia closer to 250, which would have allowed Sri Lanka to pace their innings a little less frenetically.
The Sri Lankan chase was perhaps a little too slow at the start, but Jayasuriya (63) and Sangakkara (54) clearly batted to a plan. However, the climbing asking rate accounted for several wickets leaving Sri Lanka totalling 215-8 in an end made controversial by some poor umpiring. Mahela Jayawardena, in a gracious gesture agreed to bat the overs through without excacerbating an already confused situation.
Overall, Australia were so dominant that it probably mattered little whether Sri Lanka batted first or last. Much is being made by Sri Lanka supporters of Gilchrist carrying a squash ball in his glove to help him with his grip, which sounds a lot like sour grapes; their argument is based on this giving Gilchrist an unfair advantage (if not illegally, at least unethically). To be fair, I trust this argument would extend to Sri Lankan cricketers wearing 'pirith nool' or Dilhara Fernando or Chaminda Vaas making the sign of the cross, with any divine help being provided thereafter being put down to an unfair advantage.
During the recent Indian tour, I felt Sri Lanka had to pull together far more to mount a credible challenge at the World Cup - this they did, at times brilliantly so. However, my second concern was how well the Sri Lankan bowling would fare when under fire - and sadly were found wanting in this most crucial of matches.
Looking to the future, if Sri Lanka are ever to be as dominant as the Australians have been of late in world cricket, they must look to win all their matches, getting the win rate up as close as possible to 100%. If they do this, World Cups and other trophies will follow automatically, I believe. The Sri Lankan team showed the right ingredients in playing with passion, pride and skill, showing both individual excellence and great team spirit. Given that this performance was away from home, it probably ranks even higher than the 1996 World Cup winning performance.
Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo
Cricket World Cup 2007 Highlight - Ranjit Fernando
There's been much said (a lot of it abusive) about Ranjit Fernando and his commentary skills. It got to the point where even if another commentator made a Ranjit Fernando-like observation, all would ignore it... all the while singing a hymn of hate for Ranjit Fernando.
Let's face it - Ranjit Fernando's commentary is poor, perhaps unbelievably so.
Why was Ranjit Fernando chosen in the first place? Viewed caustically, maybe the commentator selection panel sees something in him that we don't (much like Marvan Atapattu's retention in the side after continuous failure). Or maybe there just wasn't anyone available/willing at the time to take on the job, knowing that the sharks were circling, waiting to put up a blog if they weren't upto the sharks' oh-so-high standards.
We've all got faults - but wouldn't working to improve them (and helping others, even Ranjit Fernando, to improve) be the right thing to do? Shouldn't the fear of being in a glass house and the result of throwing stones come to mind at this point?
Until Sri Lankans learn to do these things, Sri Lankan culture has a much bigger problem than just Ranjit Fernando's commentary.
-EndOfRant-
Let's face it - Ranjit Fernando's commentary is poor, perhaps unbelievably so.
- He cannot analyze the game technically anywhere as well as a Richie Benaud, Ravi Shastri, Ian Chappell, Barry Richards, Sunil Gavaskar or prospectively, Kumar Sangakkara. He's not even an anchor (as it were) in the mould of Tony Cozier.
- He does not have the voice nor the presence to do the job he is doing, though I suspect he's a lot better than the rest of us at it.
- He repeats what others say, uses tired old cliches and gets the score wrong - a lot.
- He can't identify players correctly and in the England match, he got the result wrong.
- He can't even pronounce his countrymen's names (e.g. Tharangaa for Tharanga).
- He states the 'bleeding obvious' (as per Martin Johnson of the Telegraph, who states the bleeding obvious in pointing this out himself!), but for the open minded, he only does it more often than the other commentators. After all, any commentator who says a batsman hit a four, while the same is being displayed on the screen is guilty of this infringement - was Ranjit Fernando the only one? And yes, I'm equally guilty of stating the obvious in pointing out Martin Johnson - thank you, point taken, I'll try and stop doing that!
At least be thankful that Ranjit Fernando's got rid of his once trademark line of "oh, what glorious batsmanship!". And give him a break for the fact that Sri Lanka loses wickets when he is on commentary. If it is intentional on his part that probably makes him a better bowler than Muttiah Muralitharan.
But does the fact that he might be incompetent (and deaf and blind, maybe) make him eligible for accusations of 'sucking up to the white man'? Those who wrote the blog articles used English - does that make them suck ups to the white man? Can this ever be proved, should Ranjit Fernando decide to sue these individuals for libel? Oh, wait - they didn't leave their names and addresses, the bravos!
The folk accusing him of not taking up Sri Lanka's side during commentary seem to have forgotten that a commentator is supposed to be impartial; even if other commentators are not, that does not give Ranjit Fernando license to break that rule. Similarly, some folks think that he is representing Sri Lanka - which is scarcely true; instead he's doing a job (albeit poorly) with a team that includes members from other nations.
For those who want to vent - by all means do so, for theirs is the right to free speech. But doing it behind a screen name, pulling the target's family into it, accusing them of bribery to keep Ranjit Fernando on the commentary team? Must we stoop to conquer? Ethically, aren't those venting committing a much graver wrong than what Ranjit Fernando did? All those that way inclined, while also complaining about the way Australia plays cricket - aren't they guilty of double standards?
To how many of these people did it occur to criticize constructively? Suggesting that Ranjit Fernando take elocution classes to correct his pronunciation, study the techniques of better commentators, hold his opinion against others, be willing to venture an opinion from time to time in the minority (risky, but Sanath Jayasuriya takes risks all the time with his batting!)?
- Do I think Ranjit Fernando is a poor commentator? Definitely.
- Why? Incompetence, for the reasons listed above. That is the only argument the prosecution, in all good conscience, can bring.
- Is that the only charge? Yes - being human that's all I can identify, as I cannot know his intentions.
- Should he be replaced? Yes, most definitely, if a better commentator can be found in Sri Lanka.
Why was Ranjit Fernando chosen in the first place? Viewed caustically, maybe the commentator selection panel sees something in him that we don't (much like Marvan Atapattu's retention in the side after continuous failure). Or maybe there just wasn't anyone available/willing at the time to take on the job, knowing that the sharks were circling, waiting to put up a blog if they weren't upto the sharks' oh-so-high standards.
We've all got faults - but wouldn't working to improve them (and helping others, even Ranjit Fernando, to improve) be the right thing to do? Shouldn't the fear of being in a glass house and the result of throwing stones come to mind at this point?
Until Sri Lankans learn to do these things, Sri Lankan culture has a much bigger problem than just Ranjit Fernando's commentary.
-EndOfRant-
Back again
Who'd have thought that blogging continuously would be so hard? Oh wait - that's what kept me from getting into it first time around...
Clearly, software development, studies and blogging do *not* go together... having the Cricket world cup go by did not help either...
Let's just hope I can get back and stay in the groove of blogging.
Clearly, software development, studies and blogging do *not* go together... having the Cricket world cup go by did not help either...
Let's just hope I can get back and stay in the groove of blogging.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Pursuit of Happyness
Will Smith plays Chris Gardner in this telling of a true, rags-to-riches story.
Chris Gardner sells (or more correctly, tries to sell) bone density scanners and is stuck with rent, taxes and a stack of parking tickets. His wife leaves him and Gardner takes custody of his son. Chris perseveres, trying anything to achieve happiness in life - teaching a few life lessons in the process.
Will Smith's acting was nothing short of brilliant, for me. There were times I caught myself rooting for him - which made me realize just why he got his Oscar nomination (Best Actor in a Leading Role) for this role. Strangely enough, by the same token, Thandie Newton's performance (I found myself actually hating her character) should be worth an award of some sort (and I'm not referring snidely to the Razzies!)
As much as the movie has motivational value, it's indeed ironic that the pre-success Gardners of today (the ones most needing its message) probably couldn't afford to watch the movie. Nonetheless, inspirational stuff - well worth watching.
Year of Release: 2006
IMDB Rating: 7.4/10 (11,666 votes, as at the time of posting)
Chris Gardner sells (or more correctly, tries to sell) bone density scanners and is stuck with rent, taxes and a stack of parking tickets. His wife leaves him and Gardner takes custody of his son. Chris perseveres, trying anything to achieve happiness in life - teaching a few life lessons in the process.
Will Smith's acting was nothing short of brilliant, for me. There were times I caught myself rooting for him - which made me realize just why he got his Oscar nomination (Best Actor in a Leading Role) for this role. Strangely enough, by the same token, Thandie Newton's performance (I found myself actually hating her character) should be worth an award of some sort (and I'm not referring snidely to the Razzies!)
As much as the movie has motivational value, it's indeed ironic that the pre-success Gardners of today (the ones most needing its message) probably couldn't afford to watch the movie. Nonetheless, inspirational stuff - well worth watching.
Year of Release: 2006
IMDB Rating: 7.4/10 (11,666 votes, as at the time of posting)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
SL vs. Ind, Vishakapatnam, 2007 (ODI 4)
A forgettable day for the Sri Lankan team, but a special one for Chamara Silva.
Yet again, after a top order collapse, the Sri Lankan middle/lower middle order showed fight to get to a score of 259/7 in 47 overs. Chamara Silva scored a superb run-a-ball 107 not out (12x4, 1x6) to make this possible, with help from Farveez Mahroof; Silva's innings bringing him the Man of the Match award.
The Sri Lankan bowlers then delivered a load of tripe (Dilhara Fernando was specially guilty of bowling both sides of the pitch) at the beginning, with Uthappa and Sehwag cashing in well. Sri Lanka had a slight chance of coming back at 118/3, but Yuvraj Singh took the game away with a 83 ball innings of 91 (not out). TM Dilshan bowled surprisingly well to keep even Yuvraj Singh tied down, the only plus point for the bowling attack - the quicks not showing much imagination at tying down the runs being by far the biggest negative.
There's a lot of work to be done, if Sri Lanka is to mount a credible challenge for the World Cup. Today's performance also raised a question mark of being able to adapt when under fire, a question that worthy World Cup winners should be able to answer...
Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo
Yet again, after a top order collapse, the Sri Lankan middle/lower middle order showed fight to get to a score of 259/7 in 47 overs. Chamara Silva scored a superb run-a-ball 107 not out (12x4, 1x6) to make this possible, with help from Farveez Mahroof; Silva's innings bringing him the Man of the Match award.
The Sri Lankan bowlers then delivered a load of tripe (Dilhara Fernando was specially guilty of bowling both sides of the pitch) at the beginning, with Uthappa and Sehwag cashing in well. Sri Lanka had a slight chance of coming back at 118/3, but Yuvraj Singh took the game away with a 83 ball innings of 91 (not out). TM Dilshan bowled surprisingly well to keep even Yuvraj Singh tied down, the only plus point for the bowling attack - the quicks not showing much imagination at tying down the runs being by far the biggest negative.
There's a lot of work to be done, if Sri Lanka is to mount a credible challenge for the World Cup. Today's performance also raised a question mark of being able to adapt when under fire, a question that worthy World Cup winners should be able to answer...
Scores: Cricinfo
Bulletin: Cricinfo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)