The first one

Can't be four years in a row. Go Roger. Let me be in peace. (The only thing left then would be to beat Rafa on just one more Orange final. Oh.. ok. Semi will do.)

I am surprised by how little you need to upgrade in order to get by in a software job. This, of course, applies only to them to whom the difference between MS Word and Vi stop at being primarily made available for two different operation systems. Then of course, you at least need to know that the thing waiting for you to do something when you boot up your PC is a part of Operating System. Then, of course, there are other things to it, the OS I mean. Can't remember most. But I know where the books are. At least the one with basics. Can get there. Hmm.

I have recessed from "lets wait if the value rises further" to "I told you not to put this much in the market" speeches to some people I know. Most notably, my dad. Dabble and fall.

Though the colors in his nest have faded, I doubt that he can ever get rid of them. Or, put simply, I don't think Kevin Pietersen can do the job for England. Not the captaining one, anyway. As batsman, he has been excellent. But he is definitely not captain material. I'd be very surprised if he were. Captaincy is more about man management skills rather actual playing skill. KP has been seen more as his own man. What one requires is a People's person. KP is not one of them. Andrew Strauss, I think, would have been a good bet. England erred before in handing Flintoff the captaincy as against Strauss in the last Ashes. Everyone knows what happened then and after. Only when Vaughan returned did the semblence of normalcy returned to the English camp. KP is more in the mould of Flintoff rather than Vaughan or even Nasser Hussain. He can be one of the blokes but not lead them. Even handing capataincy to Alistair Cook would have been a good move keeping an eye on the future. The best example of this has been Graeme Smith for South Africa. Even, Dhoni for us has proved to have been a good bet as against Yuvraj. But KP commands more respect, or more aptly, can be expected to have more acumen than Yuvraj or Flintoff. So, England can expect to have at best an interim captain in KP rather than a long lasting one. One must not forget that he is not English. And the attitude that he has supposedly shown till now has been of a man playing for himself or at best his mates, rather than his country. So, it is very optimistic to assume that he can be a good future leader. At any rate, I wouldn't like to see an another attacking batsman curb himself to normal levels just because he leads ten guys to the field. No KP, this cpataincy thing, this ain't for you!!

I am incoherent (should probably turn off the TV).

The anticipation was there for the last three years. The excitement, had now become palpable. It had become almost too hard to concentrate on work. I don't remember the last time I got this excited. May be it was the hype. May be it was the raves being showered already by the critics. But mostly, it was curiosity, I suppose. Can the Bat seem plausible in the real world past its origins? How do they make it real, this time?

But first, my story till the multiplex. Ah.. no, doesn't matter anymore. Suffice to say that it involved waiting, more waiting, tickets, cancellation (Are you Serious), disappointment, more waiting, tickets, waiting, traffic jam, parking full (Oh.. no!!), parking open, running, settling in the seat, just in time.

Back to the earlier question. Do they succeed in fitting the Bat in Big Apple? Yes, very much so. Does the Joker provide a plausible enemy? Yes. Does the Joker rise to become a formidable foe? Yes. Are the encounters engaging enough? Yes. Are they spectacular? Yes. Do we know more about Batman? Yes. Does the Bat's character progress? Yes. Are performances competent? Very much so. Are there wow-inspiring shots? Yes. Is the movie as atmospheric as a Batman movie should be? Yes, even in the real world. Finally, does Heath ledger perform as well as everyone is raving about? He nails it.

A word about character development. The Nolan brothers impress again in this regard. Every central character in the movie is well fleshed out. The Joker's was obvious as he was the movies, er, joker. But the attention given to DA Harvey Dents character is impressive. The character is quite likable and almost has leading man potential which should be probably in part be credited to Eckhart's performance. He keeps the character fallible yet sympathetic and believable even when he turns a raging maniac. Freeman has been given more scope in terms of role play. But I was impressed by Michael Caine as Alfred. He is the pillar to both Batman and Bruce Wayne and provides that much needed support when either of them lose sight of their purpose. He is the Bat philosophy. Caine eeks out a finely nonced performance. Gary Oldman as the commissioner of police is good. Probably one of the normal guy characters in a franchise which is so full of dark, twisted tones. But I don't find his character as strong or in need of any more fleshing out than what has already been done in this movie. About Rachel Daws, I certainly wasn't expecting the twist. So, that was bit of a surprise. Maggie Gyllenhaal does well.

Now, lets move on to the two central characters - Batman and the Joker. From now on, if somebody says Joker, it should always remind everyone of this one. The conception is brilliant. The entry is nothing short of superb. It should end up as the one of the most iconic shots ever. The Joker is pure evil. He has no sympathy. He only has disdain for everyone save for one, Batman. Because he to him, is an able adversary, a worthy conquest. He has a maniacal zeal that resembles enthusiasm more than wicked fury. And he is scarily believable. Heath Ledger has given performance of a lifetime. His was cut short. He will live on with us. As the Joker, he is entertainingly creepy and scares the wits out of everyone. I don't even remember Jack Nicholson's Joker. But probably its unfair to compare the two performances as the tones of the two films are completely different. But I can safely say that Heath has outdone Jack Nicholson in in dark demeanor stakes. I sincerely hope that his portrayal does not evoke mindless followers in the real world.

I would be disappointed if someone else was given the Oscar. Its not his tragic death that evokes this emotion but the pure genius of his portrayal. We have been denied a great and versatile actor.

Now, what about Batman? I don't think The Bat's character has been dissected so well in any other movie. I am sure I will see more of it as I have a second or third repeat viewing. He certainly has been given a hard time. He has been made to make tough choices. Batman struggles. By the end of the movie, he loses more than he gains. But by bearing the emotional cost, by sticking to the general good, he ultimately remains the Hero, he should be. He frees himself. Bale gives a finely matched performance. He ultimately wins approval as both Bruce Wayne and Batman.

This film has given me what I missed primarily in Batman Begins. An uncompromisingly evil Villain. Because idealists, as the league of the shadows, can't inspire awe and fright. They merely evoke the need for removal. The movie, then, becomes a bit too dependent on pyrotechnics. To match the Batman, one needs more than that. Because Batman has an emotional core that needs to be matched. The Joker completes Batman. This movie, then, is not dependent on the big action sequences that are prerequisites of a big Summer blockbuster. They are there but as required ingredients rather than the sole purpose of the meal. The real fireworks, come from the drama and choices the characters have to make.

The length of the movie is testimony to the detailing put in for each character. At two and half hours, the movie ends up a bit longer than expected. But I certainly didn't end up grudging that. To be honest though, I was a bit worried about the other audience in the hall. But somehow the movie struck a chord with the audience which is rare for a summer actioner. To my surprise, I was audience to a spontaneous applause as the credits rolled. Imagine that for a supposedly popcorn flick! This brings me to the ending. The choice of the ending is a bit bold, rather unsettling. The Bat chooses to be an outlaw, hunted. I am not sure if thats the way, Batman is intended to be. May be it is. In a way, it seemed closure for Nolan and Batman. To me it seemed that Nolan is taking his last bow. I sincerely hope not. If he does take up the mantle again, I will be very curious as to how they move forward in the direction they have taken. How does anyone go forward from here? Only time will tell.

By the first half ended, I had already got everything I had come for. I sat transfixed letting it unfold and soaking it all in. Even if the movie had ended there, at one and half hours, I had got all that I wanted to see. So, anything more was just a bonus. The next hour didn't let me down either. When I came out of the theater, I was wrestling with two words - magnificent and mind blowing. I couldn't settle on either. It is too dark to be magnificent. It is too disturbing to be mind blowing. But I could finally believe in the Knight. And he is the darkest.

(Probably, a second viewing will make me look at things a little more in perspective.)

Labels: Movies

Taking this opportunity to revive my blog by posting my comments on Ramanand's blog about the Roger-Rafa Wimbledon Final 2008. So, here goes...

Got to see the match between the two rain beaks. So, I saw the best part of the match. After watching Nadal play in previous matches, I had predicted a comfortable Nadal win. Federer surprised me. Federer will never win French Open against Nadal. Its very difficult if he will win again here in Wimbledon against Nadal. Why? Because Federer doesn't practice enough. He doesn't bring his best game with him to every match. He just does what is required. This is very unlike Nadal who plays every point to the best of his ability. That is why he always has his best game to his beck and call. Federer doesn't. True, I rooted for Federer. But the true champion won. And so he shall remain. One final point. This not a decline of Federer. This is the same level at which he has played for years. Its just only now he is up against a genuine contender. I only hope this revives Federer to scale greater heights. If he has it in him, he will realize that there is no such thing as "my part of the season".

Now when I say practice, I mean it in terms of playing your best game against the best opposition when really required. That he couldn't play his best game, this much Federer himself acknowledged after the match. Case in point is his backhand in this match. It seemed to desert him for most part between the rain breaks. But we did see a scorching one ON championship point in the fourth set tie-break. As per Nadal's admission, he had deliberately placed the ball to Federer's backhand as he was missing a lot on backhand. So, had his backhand working fine, he would have won, I suppose. But he couldn't summon it. He is a great player. But most of his titles have come in an era when tennis has been uncharacteristically devoid of rivalries. I, myself, am a Federer fan since he came into prominence. But I have increasing realized that people often overlook the beauty of Nadal's game. How many times does he seem to miss these days? He also plays almost as great shots as Federer hits, only with seemingly less error percentage. But nobody seems to be raving about his shots. Does Federer's elegant personality translate to his shots being noticed as more graceful/beautiful? Does Nadal's battler reputation take the sheen off the beauty of his shots? We will have to make up our own minds. To me it certainly seems to be the case. Anyways, I must point out that I am only a grudging Nadal fan.

Labels: Sport, Tennis

I have been wading through an onslaught of soap after soaps since the time my parents descended. Must say, gets to you after a while. But I did like Indian Idol, better programming and contestants, I suppose. And of course, Anu Malik, a la Simon Cowell, is it? But I do find myself agreeing with him more often than not. On the movie front, found out a new site from which I can see most of the new movies (english) and make use of my broadband connection.

Labels: General

No wonder its Dieing Hard, at least in India. If you are the type who likes things blown to bits and hurtled to every conceivable edge of the screen, you are going to love Die Hard 4.0. Its more in the mold of True Lies than Matrix. And thank God for that :-)

Labels: Movies