Monday, February 23, 2009
Will Shakespeare’s 25 Random Things list
Well, many of us thought, analyzed and then poured our hearts out to fill a “25 random things about yourself” or “40 things you don’t know about me”, or a “gazillion things I REALLY didn’t want to know about you” type of lists. So how would it be if the bard decided to make one such list? Fret not, fair maiden (or men or whatever else), here’s just such a list. Some [of my favourite] excerpts:
13 The people that loue my Wordes the best are always the most disappointed vpon meeting me. Is thisse List ouer yet?
15 I deteste it when the Low-Comedians improuise the scenes I writ them… becavse they always make them so mvch fvnnier.
25 When I am feeling Melancholic, I console myselfe with the Knowledge that, aboue all else, I will be remembered for my Musick.
Notice the spelling, of course!
Link thanks to Amit Varma.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
“Slumdog Millionaire”, Enough Already!
[Well, I’ve been a bit lazy about writing something on here, but this movie and all the hoopla surrounding it has riled me enough to want to put my thoughts down. Be warned though, there are spoilers in this post, but then again, I don’t give a …]
There are movies about India and there are movies about India. Particularly when it comes to dealing with an iconic city like Bombay (yes, “Bombay”…most Indians refuse to use the politicized names such as Mumbai, Chennai, Bengaluru, etc.). Bombay has long been the city of dreams in India, what with it being India’s biggest city, its financial capital, one of the largest ports in the country and of course the Hindi film industry being based there (“Bollywood” for the uninitiated). From the time movies have been made in India there have been various attempts to showcase life in Bombay and even attempts at making the city a character in the movie. There have been movies about the rich, the poor, criminals and cops, politicians and prostitutes, businessmen and ordinary people -- you name it, its been done in Bombay.
Enter, Mr. Danny Boyle and company to make a movie in India. One guess where its set – Bombay! Well, then he wants to make a movie about Indians and let’s have another guessing game what its about – slums and poverty. And let’s not forget that ultimate cliché that is common to Grandma’s bedtime stories, folklore and bad B-grade movies – it is a “rags to riches” story with a girl thrown in as well.
![2968978540_b3a8f207bc[1].jpg_v=0 by you.](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3217369554_7b2d180ff2.jpg?v=0)
Well, it seems like one western filmmaker after another is out to “showcase” India to the rest of the world. First there was John Jeffcoat with his pathetic attempt at showing the software outsourcing industry in India with “Outsourced” that received “rave reviews” and what not, and now Danny Boyle has this attempt. Why is it that a movie about India is received in the west only if it is cliché-ridden and shows cows, slums and general poverty (of late it is the outsourcing and tech support angles)? And even then, why must is be made by a non-Indian? Shekhar Kapur made a really good movie known as “Bandit Queen” and the Oscar committee did not have the sense to add it to the Oscar candidates’ list, let along nominate it. Of course, at the time, they were worried someone was going to sue them for it.
Hard-hitting movies about India, that too set in Bombay, have been made in the past. Mira Nair’s “Salaam Bombay!” was a brilliant, gritty movie about a boy who lives in the streets of Bombay (sound familiar, Mr. Boyle?) and goes through more hell than what is shown in this romanticized “Slumdog…” movie. Manirathnam’s film “Bombay” was about the riots in the 90s and Anurag Kashyap’s “Black Friday” was about the 1993 serial bomb blasts in the city and the aftermath. These movies about that city stand far above the lame attempts in “Slumdog…”.
Let’s delve into the details to see why, in my opinion, this movie doesn’t deserve all the credit that it is receiving. First off, Dev Patel as the protagonist, Jamal Mallik. What can one say of a character raised in the slums of Bombay and who can barely put together a few words of broken English, when those words happen to be in a British accent! He really tries to emulate an Indian accent, but it comes off as a parody of the Apu accent, and that’s giving him credit! He is far from believable in this role and doesn’t even seem comfortable doing it. Here’s what I got from Wikipedia,
To prepare for the role, he went along with Boyle while scouting for filming locations, where he was able to observe the Dharavi slums for himself. He also reported having had a brief internship at a call centre and working in a hotel, where he spent a day washing dishes and generally observing life in Mumbai.
Well, these are the problems with casting people in such roles – for a role such as this you either need someone who is a local and can understand the nuances of the country, the culture, everyday mannerisms, etc. or a phenomenal actor who can slip into a role with conviction and get under the skin of the character. Dev Patel falls flat on both counts and before you go off with, “hey, he’s Indian” and what not, let me remind you – being of Indian origin doesn’t necessarily mean that you can understand the day-to-day issues of living in the country for a few years and not just a day washing dishes and working in a call center (that modern cliché for India).
The script. Where does one start with a storyline that feels like it has been thrown together in fits of drunkenness? The main outline is that Jamal Mallik, a boy who grew up in the slums of Bombay needs to go on the television show “Kaun Banega Crorepati?” (Indian equivalent of “Who wants to be a millionaire?”) to find the girl of his dreams. As improbable as that sounds, what’s worse is that he is actually able to answer all the questions that are thrown at him, no matter how arcane or ridiculous they are. For instance, for the question “which American politician’s picture appears on the $100 bill?” he is able to obtain the correct answer (Ben Franklin) because of the following sequence of events: he tries to scam some tourists –> the driver beats him up –> the tourists feel bad for him –> they decide to show him the “American way” (another cliché, this time on Americans) and give him a $100 bill –> he meets a blind kid who is a beggar that he hasn’t met for many years and they recognize each other –> the blind kid who has never seen a $100 bill himself, is able to feel the note and tell him Ben Franklins’ picture is on there!!! So every question that is thrown as him matches an event in his life and he is able to answer it correctly.
Of course, the plot would not be complete without…you got it, clichés! There are the usual corrupt and brutal cops, an egotistical show game host, the slums in the city, scenes with filth, people who maim kids to make them beggars, underworld dons, Hindu-Muslim riots and even a brother who only cares about number one. (How would Americans like it if every movie about the US, that is made in another country, shows cowboys and “injuns” shooting each other and shows the country as still being racially segregated?)
Adding to this whole mess, Danny Boyle tries to be “poetic”. The climax, where his brother fills a tub with money and decides to lie in wait for the don with a gun and then dies in a hail of gunfire (of course in slow motion and b&w) with the bills fluttering all around him has no words to describe the sheer lack of originality. Well, except that a Tarantino he is not…not even a John Woo, who with two guns and some slow motion could actually create visual poetry. This was such a lame attempt on the part of the director to try and show off his “talent”. This from a guy who made the likes of “Trainspotting”!
This movie has just two savings graces and one of them is an acknowledged genius who probably doesn’t need much of an introduction. I’m speaking of A. R. Rehman, the brilliant music composer. The music that he has crafted for this movie is phenomenal, like much of his work. It captures the feel of the city and the mood that the movie is supposed to set. He deserves all the awards that he gets for best score.
The second, is Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, as young Jamal Mallik. He is perfect as a child growing up in the slums of Bombay. He has the right sense of innocence, wonder (for instance, when he gets an autograph from a movie star), cheek, diction and acting abilities to make him look like a natural in the movie. He is probably the only person in the movie that looks and acts his part.
After the Golden Globe wins for this movie, I am really hoping that the Academy has enough sense to not prop this up any further at their awards. If that were to happen, one would hear no end of an “Indian” movie making it in the Oscars and would probably scar an entire industry brimming with immense talent as they has to put up with jibes based on a sub-standard movie.
All in all, definitely a forgettable venture. Hang on, not just forgettable, but lock it and up throw it away and have your memory wiped (a la “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) forgettable type of movie. In fact, thinking about it, go watch “City of God” instead which is a far better movie that seems eerily familiar (hmmm!) and made by someone who knows what making such a movie is all about.
___________________
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
44!
I must say that I never thought I would live to see the day. The day that someone who is not a white male gets elected as the President of the United States of America. Not that it was impossible, as recent events have obviously shown, but until a few months ago it seemed highly improbable. History was against it. The divisions within this country seemed to have increased if anything over the last couple of decades and for someone to transcend a contentious issue like race seemed like an impossibility. Yet, here Barack Obama stands, the 44th President-elect of the United States of America! And winning with a landslide (338-156) at that!
While this election (both the lead-up and the actual result) includes many firsts it also marks a change for the Democrats – winning the presidency and gaining a significant majority in Congress. This hasn’t happened since the first term of Bill Clinton’s presidency and that lasted for only a short two years. So, this could be either an incredible opportunity to bring about positive “change,” or one to lose your way in partisanship. This is a fine line the new President will have to walk.
In my opinion, some of the best decisions for a country (and society in general) have happened when the legislature and the executive are perhaps from opposite sides of the aisle. When you can put aside your pet projects rooted in ideology to meet with, and gain consensus from the other side then that process maintains a critical balance in society. Traditionally when both sides are aligned to the same ideology and level heads give way to emotion then it is possible for the government to push through legislation that could alienate a significant portion of the populace and perhaps cause long-term harm. Any doubts and one should look back to 2000-2004 period to study the reasons why this country is stuck in what seems like a never-ending war in Iraq.
Enough has been said about the challenges that the President-elect will face in office. Many campaign promises and pet projects may have to be put aside on account of the bailout, the two seemingly endless wars, etc. Perhaps the comforting thought that his party holds close to an absolute chokehold in the Congress might help in dealing with these problems. But, he must ensure that power is not abused.
Obama’s ascendancy to the White House can also help silence many critics of the US. People who complain that the Americans play the role of a big bully and pick on the little guy may have to hold their tongues, at least for a while. This election shows that the little guy, an outsider, an African-American, the son of an immigrant, can rise to the highest office in the land. Perhaps this might mean that the new President starts with some grudging respect and good-will from his peers around the world – something that he should milk to the fullest extent to improve the approval ratings for the US in the eyes of the world.
But the bottom-line is that we live in historic times and one expects that Obama goes down in history for his presidential term(s) and governance rather than for his election!
_______________
Labels: 2008, 44, clinton, democrats, elections, obama, opinions, politics
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate
Well, this is not an article about the political debate that was on tonight, but it does have implications in that sphere as well. This is about “debate” in the generic sense – a discussion when two or more entities/people/parties disagree on a certain topic and decide to talk about it.
Seems like the majority of discussions (debates, if you will) fall into one of two categories:
1. politically correct, staid, excessively “civil”, no trace of passion
2. “your mother is a $!*&# because you don’t agree with me”
Now [1] tends to a bit boring because people are afraid to articulate their true thoughts/emotions for fear of being misjudged or labeled the wrong way. The second, while it makes for interesting television, evokes the wrong set of sentiments. How often does a discussion quickly step out of bounds because one or both parties got carried away with an unnecessary comment or judgment call?
Now, neither of these two extremes achieves the true purpose of the debate – understanding the other side(s) and achieving consensus. The first, as I mentioned, is overly civil and the true reasons and thoughts of the parties involved are not known. The whole affair is put up and made for “appearing” to do the right thing. So the public face is quite different from the private one and hence it is extremely unlikely that people will put aside their prejudices and beliefs for such a farcical process to yield results.
The problem with the second one is obvious – name-calling and personal insults do not go hand in hand with understanding, compromise or consensus. Once this route has opened up there is pretty much no going back. The statement above (about one’s mother) is akin to the corollary in Godwin’s law; once someone likens you to a Nazi/Hitler or insults your mother, then every statement that you made before, no matter how well constructed or how logically or fundamentally correct, is open to question and shaded grey. If you really believe in a cause/opinion, then the best way for someone to belittle it is to let you (yes, you, who might be the most fervent proponent of the viewpoint) hang yourself with statements such as these. Agreed that it is a logical fallacy. Just because you likened someone to Hitler doesn’t mean that the polar bears are not dying! But, unfortunately, you have handed your opponent(s) the leisure to ignore everything (yes, that’s right everything) you have ever said in that discussion. The lack of a platform to present your views or the possibility that you are not taken seriously enough is potentially more dangerous to your “cause”.
If you are thinking, “I don’t do that.” I never insult anyone that way. Let me put this across to you – even if you pass of what you think is a trivial insult (“what an idiot!”) or make a silly sarcastic comment with negative connotations (“your points of view are certainly ‘interesting’ ”), you are still guilty of taking the second path! This is because, to someone in the middle of passionately expressing their point of view or defending their faith, so as to speak, there is nothing worse than mockery, no matter how subtle. From then on, it is a free-for-all and matters can only get worse, because every exchange drags the quality of the arguments lower until [2] (or something very close) is achieved.
Is there no middle ground? Can we not have a passionate debate without falling into the gutter? How’s this as a third option:
3. each party will passionately vocalize their point(s) of view, listen to the others, bring up facts, arguments and opinions that counter the expressed views and then allow the other side to do the same. A bit like a sparring match.
Don’t get me wrong though – I’m not talking about a “clinical” approach where someone makes a point and then the other spends 5 minutes thinking about it and then responding with “logical fallacy” arguments and what not. That would approach method [1] from above and would end up becoming boring, both, to the participants and to the viewers, if any. Be passionate, go on record with those contentious thoughts and opinions, fervently argue against the points made by the opposition, all without resorting to calling into question the judgment of the other side. They have their reasons for picking a particular side (or staying impartial which is actually harder that you can imagine) and there is no reason to question their motives for picking that side or insulting them for doing so. The question I have is – so what if they don’t agree with you? Consider it time well spent, shake on it and walk off. No harm done. You don’t ever have to have a discussion with them ever again on that or any other topic if you think that you will never agree with them. Perhaps in time, they will come to realize that your point of view is correct and may start to agree with you. If you had chosen method [2] then there is very little scope that this could happen. All it takes someone who is a partial or even true believer to harden his stance, is to be belittled or insulted for holding that opinion.
Seems like we have lost the ability to have true civilized debates (not the ones mentioned in [1]) in the modern world. Television and the large propagation of media (traditional and otherwise) might be pushing people to pick [1] or [2]. The former because anything can be taken out of context and misrepresented and the latter because it sells more newspapers and increases television ratings. What must the ordinary man on the street (“Joe Plumber”) think and learn when he sees his peers, his administrators, policy makers, celebrities, commentators and even teachers and educators around him stick to one of these two extreme techniques? Where are the people who could raise a crowd to its feet with passionate speeches and counter-arguments without ever insulting the other party? Are they a dying, nay dead, breed?
Here is an interesting note to end on: how often does one see a debate/discussion start with method [1] (or a brief attempt at [3]) and then invariably end up at [2]?
__________________
Labels: arguments, debates, discussions, opinions, society
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Graphic Novel Review | "Doctor Who" #1
"Legends tell of the planet Gallifrey, born before the dark time, home of the most powerful beings in the cosmos.
By harnessing the powers of a black hole, they traveled in time. They became benign gods of the universe.
Learned and responsible, they observed the universe, understanding causal effect, and monitoring and protecting the fragile web of time.
But there was a war. A terrible, devastating war, which they were party to...and in one second, Gallifrey, the time lords, a many planets, systems, and galaxies were consumed. Gone forever as the universe itself collapsed. "
What would you do if you were the only survivor of this great race of Time Lords from Gallifrey? What if you were The Doctor - one who can instill fear, respect, love and admiration all at once? What would you do to carry on your heritage and protect the time stream from the many demons out there?
Go on a hunt for the best chocolate milkshake in the known cosmos, that's what!
With the success of the BBC television series, Doctor Who is back in business - albeit in the color panels of a graphic novel series from IDW publishing. This series follows the escapades of the 10th doctor and his companion, the Brit Martha Jones, in the "Time and Relative Dimension in Space" (TARDIS) vehicle shaped like a London police box.
The storytelling and art are typical - tongue-in-cheek humour interspersed with some interesting gadgets, trans-dimensional villains, and of course the really tough choices: "Dark or Milk?", "Belgian or Swiss?" - milkshakes that is.
Not everything is fun and milky joy for the Doctor and his companion of course - they must face off against a villain, Sycorax, intent of collecting the Doctor to use him as prey for Sycorax's clients who like to hunt species on the verge of extinction. Sycorax himself is the paradigm of elegance, exuding class with menace, all the while mouthing lines such as, "Sycorax strong, humans weak, that is why we rock!"
This new graphic novel adaptation of the classic Doctor Who series keeps the spirit of the original television series and books alive. It has enough gadgetry, humour and thrill to keep us involved. The book ends with a bit of a cliffhanger in London. While this was the first of the series, I would definitely love to get my hands on the remaining books.
________________
Labels: doctor who, gallifrey, graphic novel, IDW, martha jones, review, tardis, time lord
Graphic Novel Review | "Therefore Repent" by Jim Munroe and Salgood Sam
"The Rapture is the name given to a future event in which Jesus Christ will descend from Heaven,"
What if the rapture went from being mythology to reality? So if you were living a "saintly" life as deemed by God, you would be led into heaven by the Son of God himself. If the rapture event came to pass, and if you were one of the folks left behind, how would you feel? Would you feel like a complete schmuck for either not believing in Christianity, or worse, being a Christian and not living a "saintly" life?
"accompanied by the spirits of all the saints of God, both from the pre-incarnation period and after, who have passed on prior to this event,"
"Therefore Repent", released in the United States by IDW publishing, is set in such a world - in a time after the Rapture has taken place. Those that remain, either were not "invited" to join in, chose to remain, or worse, could not get outdoors in time to be drawn up into heaven! People left behind either spend their time in "repenting" and trying to lead good lives so that they are part of the rapture the next time around, or just watching the world go to hell.
"and then the bodily remains of these saints are transported from the Earth to meet the Lord and be rejoined with their corresponding spirits in the air."
Before you go, "not another one of those morality tales telling us that we should live good lives for the promise of heaven, etc." read on a bit. Matters are not as they seem and there is more to the rapture event than meets the eye. Munroe and Sam have some sharp wit running through the story, and particularly towards the end, where everything is revealed. They are able to twist a morality tale into one with sharp humor and witty undertones. Along the way the story takes somewhat weird turns, such as talking dogs, ravens, third eyes, commando angels, and a real kinky method for email transmissions. 
"Immediately after this, all Christians alive on the earth are simultaneously transported to meet the Lord and those who have preceded them in the air. "
They all push you towards the climax that will leave you either really laughing your head off, or forcing you to think deep and do some soul searching as regards religion, life, etc. - worse, it could make you do both!
The art is in stark black and white with some great paneling. It brings out the mood for the book depending on what your mood is - dark undertones for a gloomy world, or a representation of the dark humor that is prevalent throughout the book.
" All are transformed into immortal bodies like Jesus' body, often referred to as the "resurrection body".
It is a good read - something that definitely forces a double take on organized religion and also makes for a good laugh. It is interesting that the book starts with a quote from Revelation 2:16:
"Therefore Repent! If you do not, I will come to you soon and fight against them with the sword of my mouth"
_________________
Labels: book review, graphic novel, IDW, jim munroe, rapture, revelations, salgood sam, therefore repent
Friday, February 29, 2008
In memorium...
Rest in peace. Your progeny still carry the legacy forward:
Friday, January 11, 2008
Book Review | Graphic Novel "Unbeatable"
Is a nightmare just a dream gone wrong, or does the cause lie somewhere else? What if you wake up in a padded cell and then slip into endless nightmares day after day? Nightmares that don't make sense. Nightmares that have you dying day in and day out. How do you get out of the cycle and try to make sense of what is going on? How do you stop yourself from going insane? Wait a minute...what if you are already insane?
Matthias Wolf's first effort at a Graphic novel titled "Unbeatable" starts off really well. It shows a young man in pain, waking up in a padded cell with no memories of what has transpired. Before he realizes it, he is launched into dream after dream where all he does is fight the most famous warriors in history with a predictable outcome -- his death at their hands.
The book is slick -- well crafted images, great start with the plot unwinding slowly at times but with large leaps and bounds at other times.
He remembers growing up in a small town, his first crush, his mild mannered father who guides him along the various pitfalls of life that only a high-schooler can experience, when things seem to go wrong in seemingly small ways.
His father, the epitome of non-violence breaks loose and unleashes his 
fury and is then immediately paid a visit by a mysterious person whom he recognizes, but our protagonist has never seen before. A "creature" is helped in his escape from a highly secure facility who then rampages across the countryside and finds our hero's girlfriend as a victim after he has been knocked unconscious. To top it all, he wakes up in a padded cell with no memories and gruesome battles and deaths to follow.
The storytelling and art are great, with styles reminiscent of manga artwork -- somewhat comic, yet deadly serious. The coloring is fantastic - invoking exactly the kind of mood and feelings that the author intended.
The only problem I had was when the plot unwinds towards the end -- it seems too sudden and too convenient. While there are no doubts in the reader's mind as to what has been happening, perhaps a couple of more pages and panels could have been dedicated to explaining the concept in a more careful manner.
All said and done, this is a great first effort and if there is a sequel (or even other titles from the same group) then I shall definitely like to get my hands on it.
____________________
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Book Review | Complete Graphic Novel version of Clive Barkers "The Great and Secret Show"
Did you ever get the feeling that there is something other than what seems "real"? A vague feeling of undercurrents in everyday life? That something lies beneath the surface, and yet cannot be seen, heard or touched? What if that something is a source of unimaginable power and yet we cannot know of its existence?
The real scary part -- what if by being at a particular point in time or place you chance upon the existence of this seemingly endless source of power and worse, misery?
Clive Barker is a master of horror. He can weave stories around you while you are busy concentrating on something else -- concentrating on something as dull as a post office clerk working in the middle of nowhere. Nowhere becomes somewhere for Randolph Jaffe the aforementioned post-office clerk. He becomes aware of something called "the art" which can help him gain access to a mystical sea known as "quiddity". To gain access to this source of supposedly infinite power, he calls upon Richard Fletcher to help him. Fletcher, through scientific (or other) means, is able to find a way through to the "art".
Here begins a battle for control of the art -- a battle that calls upon huge resources of power and energy from Jaffe on the one side and Fletcher on the other...a classic good vs evil battle.
But, is that what this book is all about? Does it come down to that overabused concept of good vs evil? 
The answer: doesn't everything come down to that quintessential question? Choices must be made in life and sometimes those choices are black and white. What you choose defines you and if you are the source of great power, then it probably defines an entire generation, if not more. Barker is able to conjure up these ideas by having his chief characters fight it out over various realms of the real and unreal. But his genius is the fact that he doesn't leave the storyline at such a simplification.
Four teenage girls frolicking in a countryside are raped by the "spirits" of both Jaffe and Fletcher -- to impregnate them so that their progeny can continue the battle. Yes, that's correct -- both of them fall to the level of raping the young girls. Here's where the gray comes into the battle. No one side is "pure" anymore. They are both willing to do whatever it takes to win. Does the end justify the means? That is what both sides seem to believe in this tale...
Well, guess what - eighteen years later, their progeny answer the "call" and come out on one side or the other. Or do they? What if they don't want to take the roles chosen for them by their powerful fathers? What if they are attracted to each other?
A whole host of characters go in and out at a dizzying pace in the story. We can see that Clive Barker did not intend for us to sit still and follow single lines of thought. There are subplots within subplots. For instance, who is the woman in the desert? Who is this Kissoon character really, and how is he able to exist in a single moment over and over? What happens if Quiddity is breached?
Do not worry -- Barker and his host of characters have answers to 
everything in this first (and yet complete) book in the "Art Trilogy".
Adapted into the graphic novel version by Chris Ryall (who adapted "Shaun of the Dead") and Gabriel Rodriguez (who adapted "George A Romero's Land of the Dead") the storytelling reaches new heights. IDW has a history of great titles, and this is definitely one of the top graphic novels from their stable. The artwork and visual images evoked in the adaptation heightens the understanding of the original story and also makes us involved in the sequence of events. It is extremely difficult to put down and makes for fascinating reading. I now want to get my hands on the second book in the "Art Trilogy" -- "Everville", or even its graphic novel adaptation.
________________
Friday, December 14, 2007
Customer service woes...
What is it about interacting with customer service that seems to drive us over the edge? Is it the incessant lack of logic and rationality that we have to face from time to time? No matter which industry (telecom, credit cards, insurance, you name it) the same problems keep creeping up all the time.
The standard answer of "the system says so, hence, it must be true" must be intentionally designed to bring out the maximum frustration among the customers. I have often been tempted to reply, "you know I am fairly competent in Computer Science and I know that the system is only what you put into it. It does not have a life of its own," but held off from doing so, if only to avoid the metaphysical discussion that would inevitably follow about "the system" having a life of its own!
Then it seems like the first person you speak to about your problem cannot help you, because the rules don't allow them to do anything about your situation. "But for a low fee of $14.95 we can ensure that you do not receive additional penalties!"
Most people will probably hang up, pay the additional fees, seethe about how they got screwed over and then forget about it -- until their next tryst with a customer service rep, when the horror starts all over again. Some resourceful people will actually record their experiences and force the company to pay them back. Interestingly, the companies still do not learn!
I had a recent experience with AT&T customer service. Here's the history:
- I was supposed to get a certain discount, every month, since July of this year
- as of last month (November) they hadn't credited me with this discount
- my bill was over $100
I complained. They said they would look into it but with complete skepticism, as if I was lying about it. They called the actual store I got the plan from and then came back, in an apologetic tone, stating that the credits would be applied and my bill would be reduced to what it should be. I then get a call this month stating that my cell phone service would be disconnected for not paying the $100+ bill. I called them back and asked what about my credits and guess what I heard?
"What credits?"
Imagine that. Long explanations all over again, part of which included the following statement from their rep,
"sir do you use your phone for voice service?"
My incredulous response: "can you please repeat?"
Them: "do you make or receive calls from your phone?"
Somehow I felt that this might be a parallel universe where the meaning of a cellular phone was somehow different! Anyways, after much plodding I was assured there was a mistake and that they would credit my account, etc. etc.
I ask: "should I just go ahead and pay the balance to ensure that my account will be valid?"
Response: "not required. We will fix this matter. Call us back in a couple of days and we'll see." End of call.
10 minutes later, my cellphone service has been...you guessed it -- disconnected! I call back from another phone and try to explain the situation
Response: "Sir, your phone has been disconnected due to non-payment. Unless you pay the amount in full we cannot restore the service. Of course, there is an additional charge of $36 to restore your service!"
I tried to reason with her and then got this response: "as a one time courtesy to you we will remove the $36 connection charge, but you must pay the balance in full!"
I ask to speak to manager/supervisor, who tells me more of the same but then I'm forced to pay half of the balance to get my service back. Apparently they will apply the credits in due course and everything will be adjusted.
Then comes the best part of the whole incident. As I'm waiting for the half payment to go through, the supervisor tells me,
"Sir we are not charging you the $36 fee as a one-time courtesy only! In the future, if you are disconnected, you must pay that fee"
Me: "you do realise that this happened because your people made a mistake?"
Her: "Sir, I do realise, but I am warning you that in the future this should not reoccur from your side."
Me: "but you still do realise that it wasn't my fault and that your people messed up?"
Her: "Sir I understand, but I'm just laying the ground rules and expectations for future dealings!" (who speaks like this in real life???)
Me (mixed exasperation with attempt to not laugh into the phone while trying hard and somewhat succeeding to keep my voice at an even tone): "Ok, now I am laying the groundwork hoping that your people will not screw up my bill and then charge me for it, cancel my service and attempt to charge me for reconnecting it -- while it was the fault of your personnel, all the time!"
30 seconds of silence on the phone and then,
Her: "thank you sir. your payment has been approved. Would you like to take down the confirmation number?"
Still no admission of guilt.
While it was exasperating that they had made a mistake and were continuing to do it even after I thought I had cleared it with their reps a month ago, the really annoying part is where they're condescending to me. The supervisor and the rep before acted as though they were doing me a favour! They did not really admit to something being wrong from their side, and yet were insisting that they were fixing the errors only as a "one-time courtesy." This is the whole attitude that annoys me. That and coupled with the fact that the first person you speak to is typically of no help. I think their job is to just stall and see if you go away. If you don't, then they put you on hold for a long time and then come back asking, "sir, are you still there?"
I have realized that the best way to get something worthwhile done after a couple of minutes of explaining it to the first rep, is to ask to speak to the supervisor. And failing that, ask to speak to their supervisor. Finally you do get to someone who can help and finally will. There was that one time though that one person said that I can't talk to anyone else simply because there is no one above him. I expressed surprise that I was speaking to the CEO of the company and that how nice it was that he was actually responding to customer calls! Well, sarcasm worked in that case and he transferred me to his boss who finally solved the problem.
So after many years of frustration in dealing with customer service, I finally believe that it is a cleverly designed system - a system to keep people out, where only the persistent ones get their problems resolved. So the next time, perhaps ask to speak to the supervisor directly and spare yourself the task of reducing your lifespan trying to explain the problem multiple times.
Oh and definitely record the conversations. Absolutely. You never know when it might come in handy.
_________________
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Book Review | Graphic Novel version of Richard Matheson's "I am Legend"
So who decides if you are human? Is if enough that each person holds on to the unshakeable belief that he or she is human? What if everyone else thought that you were not one of them? Does that shake your beliefs or do you hold onto them with a vice-like grip -- afraid that your last attempts to stave off insanity must mean that you must hold these beliefs closer than ever?
Richard Matheson's "I am Legend" forces us to ask the question - if everyone else on the planet is alike and you are the only one who is "different," then who is really human - you or them? What if all of them were bloodthirsty vampires out to kill you? Every single one of them! Since you are obviously in an abject minority, does it really matter that you believe that they are "freaks"? Does it give you the right to decide that their lives are not worth it and your is more important?
These questions hit home; uncomfortably so in fact in this book. When it is in the stark black and white that is the graphic novel adaptation from IDW by Steve Niles and Elman Brown, there is no question that this is not just any other "cool" vampire book.
This book will dispel any preconceived notions about graphic novels or vampire stories. The protagonist is not a muscle-bound super-smart guy who uses cool technology and martial arts moves to bring down vampires. Robert Neville is just another small town guy who has suffered the loss of his wife and daughter to the vampire manifestation (or is it a "virus"?) and has to survive being hunted down every night. He's neither good looking, nor does he have a technology expert helping him hunt vampires. He does so the old-fashioned way -- shaping wooden stakes from planks and putting up garlic cloves everywhere.
He has to constantly fight his all too human urges -- fires within his loins for instance. This is a facet that keeps him tottering on the edge. Whether he will give up all attempts at humanity and rape a female in sleep or if he can control himself -- are positions that he must constantly evaluate and painfully so. He does try to attack the problem analytically to understand the "scientific" issue of vampirism even while facing failure from time to time.
Is he right in trying to preserve his ideas of right and wrong? Does he have the right to kill vampires in their sleep? Are they now the "humans" on the planet and he an aberration? How does one man fight an entire planet?
The movie adaptation with Will Smith will have a tough time keeping up -- not just with the original book, but more so with this "visual" adaptation. They already seem to have started on a wrong note by making the protagonist "Dr." Robert Neville - trying to infuse some sort of intelligence to tackle the problem. Well, I won't prejudge the movie until I see it, but the graphic novel adaptation sure does look like a tough act to follow.
If you haven't read this book, then well, you should! And it is also a good book to show those people who believe that graphic novels are for prepubescent teenagers to salivate over hot babes/superheroes in tight costumes. This book shows that quality graphic novels can achieve a level of storytelling that is often hard to beat.
_________________________
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Bill vs Bill.
Bill O'Reilly vs Bill Maher that is.
No, this is not a post where I compare the two - one supposedly a battle-weary veteran holding fort for the "fair and balanced" news network and the other holding up the bastion of the liberal left against the "evil" right wingers. This is not one of those situations where I find which one is better and say that the other one should shut up.
On the contrary, I find them to be incredibly alike! Yeah, that's right, alike! Hmm...somewhere in both worlds (the liberal and the conservative ones, for clearly, they occupy different planets) heads are popping and hearts are giving out simply because I'm writing this, nay, even thinking about it!
Well, surely I'm mistaken, they say. I must mean that O'Reilly and Maher are exact opposites of each other - why look at their shows, their views, their guests, etc. They cannot be alike - it must be an error of judgement on my part. Perhaps I'm a one of those left-wing liberals trying to bring down a straight-talking, shoot from the hip TV host. Perhaps I'm a right-wing, conservative who is trying to bring down a straight-talking, shoot from the hip TV host. Hmm, now what could be common among those two statements?
Let me get rid of the subtlety and sarcasm to just get down to the point. They are both biased, stick to extremes on their own sides, push their own left-liberal/right-conservative agendas, trash talk about and talk down to people they don't agree with and bring up hypothetical situations about the attack on the right/left.
They both take pot shots are each other (well, at least of late I've seen Maher do that to O'Reilly and I'm sure the other Bill can never resist a brawl). I mean think about it - they're both preaching to the choir, and increasing the division between their respective audiences. During a time that bipartisanship is supposedly at its height, what are 
they doing but fanning the flames? And they each blame the other side for doing the exact same thing that they themselves do. While O'Reilly claims that the media is left-leaning and they're baby-murderers and terrorist-supporters, Maher claims that O'Reilly and his kind are right-wingers who lust for oil and are...yup, you got that right...baby-murderers and terrorist-supporters!
The more I think about this, the more similarities I find between the two. They can always bring up hypothetical situations (or get guests who will do it for them) which supposedly can put the other side in a "tight spot". Come on - they're hypothetical for a reason - they are artificially constructed examples that can probably never occur in real life! If they could and did occur, then you wouldn't have to ask these questions would you? The answers would be fairly obvious!
I think such "media-types" are more to blame for the problems and "fear psychosis" in today's society - at least definitely more than their targets, the politicians they like to slam. While politicians and other people in the news are expressing their private opinions, whatever they may be, such talk show hosts are the ones who are pushing these views onto the public, in what is probably a pathetic attempt to boost their ratings. And I believe that this is the worst thing to do - take side and play divisive politics without real convictions - just for increased ad revenues!
Here is a good example (and probably a rare one) of the two having a conversation...the interesting thing to note is that they still take pot-shots at each other. O'Reilly starts of by claiming that Maher has all these left-wing nut jobs on his show and then gets a good response about O'Reilly being the one who supposedly "plays it down the middle". Towards the end, Maher takes a shot at Guilliani for being a "cross-dresser" and O'Reilly takes him down, and rightly so, by asking him about what the clothes have anything to do with it.
Hmm, am I beginning to sound like them? Am I doing to them what I claim they do to others? Perhaps, but at least I'm doing it to both sides and to be honest, I have yet to see some ad revenue, and now that I've managed to piss off both sides, I doubt if I will see any.
__________________
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Movie Review | Transformers doesn't disappoint...all that much
I have, of late been reading the webcomic, "Least I Could Do" by Ryan Sohmer and Lar DeSouza. It is quite funny and really hits the spot especially if you are a twenty-something who has grown up in an urban environment. I had particular reason to think back about one recent strip as I was heading off to watch the "Transformers" movie by Michael Bay...
My thoughts exactly! Having watched a lot of the Transformers cartoon series when I was young, I was really 
apprehensive about the movie, especially since the trailers didn't seem to be really very interesting. And the part that I was most worried about - it's being directed by Michael Bay! Come on, he has Armageddon and Pearl Harbor to his credit! Even though the former was a huge hit and collected millions in the box office, I found it to be a dismal joke. So while expectations were not very high, I was hoping that my pre-analysis would prove to be wrong and that the movie would blow me out of my seat, and luckily for me, that did turn out to be the case.
First off, let me say that the movie is an out and out action 
blockbuster - the action hardly ever lets up and makes for one thrilling joy ride after another. It starts with a bang and then keeps up a fast breakneck pace. So, the only reason you would get bored, is if your idea of a night at the movies is sitting at home watching a Freddie Prince Jr. movie marathon in your pink pajamas with a batch of tissue paper!
I was pleasantly surprised by this movie because it has all the ingredients for a great summer blockbuster -- great action, fantastic special effects, fast storytelling, nostalgic memories of weekends spent watching the Transformers cartoons in our childhood, hot women, great cars and a bit of wit! Yes, that's right - they have some intentionally funny moments, at least in the first half of the movie. Most of the funny incidents and one-liners come from the unwilling protagonist played by Shia LaBeouf. He's a bumbling idiot who is always picked on by the jocks and can't seem to make women notice him, even if he spent many years studying in the same classroom with them. He gains centerstage attention because he unwittingly obtains the directions to a source of great power - something that two robot armies, who have been waging war for millennia, have been seeking for a long time.
The "Automatons" and the "Decepticons" are the good and bad guys, respectively. The former are trying to prevent the latter from achieving their goals - of taking over the Universe, presumably. Earth becomes the staging point for their battle, because "Megatron", the leader of the Decepticons has crashed here thousands of years ago and him and a vital instrument are missing and are the central objects of an intense 
struggle and search by the others. They have the ability to transform themselves at will and take on the looks and behaviour of any machinery -- from cars to stereos to army vehicles to aircraft to even cell phones. Some of these robots have been on Earth for many years, trying to understand the nuances of human civilization all the while searching for their objective. One, "Bumblebee" in particular, has the mission of protecting our hero.
So this is the perfect setup for Robot armies to invade the Earth and then start pounding each other without any regard for human life or property. What results is a carnage of intense violence and breathtaking action and special effects sequences. The camera work is also a delight to watch and some of the slow-motion sequences add a nice touch to the movie. There is one particular scene, shot in slow motion, of a car transforming itself into a robot while jumping over a shocked woman and at the same time trying to avoid missiles being fired at it. The scream of the woman, slowed down while still retaining a high pitch brings in a touch of humour to the entire situation.
The second half of the movie starts to become a bit cliched though - while the action still remains at a top level, the 
storyline and dialogues seem to take a serious nosedive, often times bordering on the nonsensical. The dialogues between "Optimums Prime" (the leader of the good guys, Automatons) and "Megatron" (the leader of the Decepticons) become cheesier and cheesier as the action seems to get hotter. Its look as though the scriptwriters and directors got caught up in planning and writing up all the action sequences that they seemed to have forgotten that a movies must also have dialogues and at the last minute patched in cliched, typical dialogues from various disaster movies. Lines akin to "these fragile humans do not deserve to exist", and "they must make their own choice", or even the spiel about how we are a "young race" who must "find our own way" and "our way of life needs protecting", etc. are uttered far too often.
Then there seems to be the whole idea of all the bad guys disguising themselves as authoritarian vehicles - either police cars of military vehicles (helicopters, tanks, military 
trucks, etc.) while the good guys get to be cool sports cars, road trucks, pickups, etc. In fact, most of the bad guys are military vehicles. Is Michael Bay trying to send "subliminal" messages about the current war and political situation? Is he trying to state that the military and the government are bad? Is this a dig on the military-industrial complex, perhaps? Oh, the subtlety! Surely no one noticed this as it was not thrown on their face a few hundred times! While directing good action sequences seems to be Bay's forte, subtlety and smartness surely doesn't seem to be.
Of course, the cast and their so-called acting wasn't very great either. Except for Labeouf, everyone else seemed to be labouring through their roles and acting in a bemused sort of way - since they must now act with non-existent actors all around them (the special effects, robots, etc.), they seem to be finding it difficult to adjust eye and body movements to obtain a natural effect. What results 
is a loss of sync between the live actors and the CGI. While Megan Fox was the eye-candy for the movie, she did have a decent role and performed admirably well. Rachel Taylor, with her thick Australian 
accent, was a bit irritating as the "special advisor" to the defense secretary. She doesn't seem to know anything about the tech stuff that she was talking about, which kind of lets her off the hot seat a bit, as much of the tech stuff didn't make sense anyways! Ok, ok, I agree - in a movie about self-transforming robotic aliens waging war on Earth, technical correctness may not always be the thing to look for -- but lines like, "can you hotwire this computer to connect it to that ancient morse code generator so that it could send morse code" and then pointing to and picking up the computer monitor was not even funny - it was plain pathetic!
There were also definite gaps in the storyline and it seemed like they were in some sort of a rush to get the movie done and out this summer. Seems like they couldn't "transform" a bad script into a good one.
Of course, the most glaring point of the movie was the garish 
product placement - from the Panasonic SD card to all of the GM vehicles. Phew! It was in-your-face and hard to ignore. I'm not against product placement if it is done in style. Hey, they need money to make the movies and if companies will shell out money so that they get a couple of seconds of showtime, then let that be the case. But there must be some limits -- in once scene, Rachel Taylor's character removes the SD card from a computer and holds it for a second while showing it to the camera instead of doing whatever she intended to do with it. Oh, then there was the over-abundance of GM vehicles. One would think that the only 
vehicles that the world ever had were made by GM! But the plus side of this was all the cool cars that were shown - especially the new Chevy Camaro and the Pontiac Solstice. Both transform into some really cool robots, and the transformations are as much fun to watch as the action sequences.
Well, I could say that this movie is worth a watch and it does provide sheer entertainment - at least for the guys and geeks everywhere. If you were a fan of the original cartoon series and action figures, then it is a must watch, but be prepared to switch your brains off for a while, and ignore the bad acting. Apart from that, you might enjoy it, thoroughly.
_________________
Friday, June 22, 2007
Gone Marbles.
Matthias Wandel has created a binary adder that uses marbles! Here is a video demonstrating how it works.
If nothing else, it look real cool.
Original link via Makezine.
_______________
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Mugger to "muggee"
A would-be thief in the western German town of Aldhenhoven found the tables turning on him, when he tried to mug a cab driver.
Excerpts...
After the 20-year-old stole the driver's wallet, a scuffle broke out between the two, in which the cabbie not only recovered his property but also took his attacker's wallet
...
The driver then locked himself in his taxi and called the police, who were amazed to find the mugger waiting patiently for them on the curb next to the vehicle when they arrived.
"He wanted his wallet back," a police spokesman said.
Well, the next time you decide to steal from someone, make sure he's not a German cabbie.
________________
Monday, June 04, 2007
What am I?
I found myself in a really odd position the other night, when a long-time friend informed someone else, in a matter of fact way, that he knows for a fact that I am a Republican! I guess surprise and shock was evident on my face as he stopped speaking and then stated, "oh! you're not?"
"Of course not!" was my reply.
Then you MUST be a democrat!
"No!"
Green Party? Communist ?
No and NO!
Some confusion reigned at the table as I tried to explain my position...I do not believe in aligning myself to a particular political agenda. My opinions will always be issue-based. I will think about the issue at hand and then decide which candidate or political party or group has similar thoughts and ideas. If I find one, then I might back them, for that issue alone.
Well, the reason for this post wasn't to clarify my political affiliations, or lack of one thereof. I was intrigued by the vagaries of human nature. Just because you propose a different opinion from the person whom you engage in a dialogue with, you are automatically classified as belonging to the "other" side! For most people, affiliations and opinions are either black or white. There is no place for shades of grey that is usually abundant in life. I mean, I have been categorized by different people as being a democrat, right-winger, republican, liberal and various other unprintable types! For instance, some of the folks that I hang out with, decidedly swing to the right (or more promptly to the Republican party agenda), When I disagree with some of the views that they express, I am immediately classified as being a "liberal". When I argue with the aforementioned friend (who is decidedly a believer in left-wing ideas), I am classified as being a Republican!
It seems like the thought, "if you are not my friend, you are my enemy" holds true among most human beings. Most people look for some sort of affirmation and when they don't get it, they suspect a hidden agenda - in fact, along the lines of opposition! I mean, we're humans - we're opinionated, self-obsessed, egotistic and short-tempered. We can't all be expected to hold the same views and opinions (a la "1984") - I mean, most of us have disagreements on where to go for lunch, and how can one expect a rational human being to align himself or herself perfectly with everything that one person believes in? In fact, dissidents abound in every major political party the world over. Hey, if the party leaders can rarely agree on what is a "correct" course of action (is there such a thing?), then why must someone from the general populace pick just one side and agree with all the baggage that comes along?
I mean, you might pick the Democrats because they are more "liberal", but may not like their socialistic ideas of medicare or increased taxes. Perhaps the Republican party's ideals of fiscal responsibility may be your thing, but you may like their ties to the oil industry. The Green party's ideas that everyone should do what they want perhaps makes sense in the larger scheme of things, but you may not like fact that people could get easy access to pot and cocaine!
This "being the enemy" phenomenon is not limited to US politics. In India, for instance, the Congress party's sole reason for existence seems to be to stay in power, but they say they are pro-poor. The communist left claims that the Congress party is a bunch of elitist rich squeezing the blood of the poor labourer. They both dislike the BJP, which is supposed to be "right-wing". If you disagree with even a single policy that any of these three political parties may have, then they classify you as being "disloyal" and belonging to the other side!
Perhaps if people stop jumping to extremes when they face something different, and understand the idea that something different doesn't necessarily mean something "wrong", then maybe half the problems in politics wouldn't exist. But then again, politics itself wouldn't exist!
So, coming back to the discussion which started this entire thought process, I was asked, "so, who do you vote for - Republicans or Democrats?". My response was - well, I can't vote in the US since I'm not a citizen, so my "affiliation" probably doesn't count!
_______________
Friday, May 04, 2007
Movie Review | Spiderman 3 sucks!
Well, it was bound to happen. After the first two movies made over 1.6 billion dollars at the box office, one would expect that the egos of the director, the stars, and even the writers would spin out of control. It did and it resulted in a sub-standard movie that seems to have been created by committee.
I am big fan of the Spiderman comic books and really like the way the characters are presented, especially the protagonist. He is nerdy, dorky and with awesome super-powers, but with a biting sarcasm which he uses really well to frustrate his opponents as well as a defense mechanism when things start to go wrong - both in his "professional" as well as personal life. That sarcasm and humour, the quintessential traits that sets Spiderman apart from the rest of the comic universe is completely lacking in the movie versions - all three of them. And that tarnishes the character quite a bit. But to be completely honest, its just as well. Considering the acting abilities (or lack of it thereof) of Toby Maguire, one must understand that there is no way that he can carry of a "funny" Spiderman.
Anyways, that apart, I went into the movie with a lot of expectations. I even believed that I will go back and watch it in a day or two at the local IMAX theater, simply, to see the obvious, awesome graphics. Yes, that's right obvious! In a world where CGI has progressed to being indistinguishable from reality, one can see what is real and what isn't in this movie. Sometimes the graphics are tardy and overdone. The action sequences are too fast and all over the place for ordinary humans to follow, make sense, or even be in awe. Things rush by so fast that one can easily get bored. Hey, if I can't follow what's going on with the fast blurry stuff zig-zagging on screen, then I might as well concentrate on the pop-corn at hand and the pretty girl sitting next to me.
And to think that they spent close to a half a billion dollars on this movie! Most expensive movie on the planet and all of it down the drain. Well if they spent even a small fraction of that money and expensive graphics to fix Tobey Maguire's complete lack of talent at emoting, then well, this movie would have been ten times as good. Let's get this straight - the only expression he can put on is one of a dopey, goofy character. Anything more complicated seems to be well out of his bag of tricks. By the way, there are two attributes that he should never attempt and he seems to overdose on them in this movie - one is trying to be emotional/sad while the other is trying to be "cool"/suave. And not surprisingly, he fails miserably on both counts.
We see a sad Peter Parker on two occasions : first, when Mary Jane claims to break up with him and again when his friend Harry Osborne has been critically injured. On both occasions he is in tears and let me warn you - it is not a pretty sight. Its like watching something horrible but being unable to turn your eyes away. In fact the audience was gasping in horror at the pathetic exhibition of emotion from Tobey Maguire.
The other disturbing aspect of the movie is when Venom takes over Peter Parker/Spiderman. Venom, an alien parasite, is supposed to bring out the worst characteristics in its host with the dark side taking over the host's personality. In Peter Parker it is supposed to make him more angry, more of a womaniser, more deadly, more powerful, less moral, etc. Well the problem is that in this movie, the character of Peter Parker is played by Tobey Maguire and angry, immoral and suave he is not. He is supposed to walk with an air about himself, make random passes at women, dress in a more dark, more stylish way, wear his hair differently and cut the rug in a mean way with some stylish dance moves at a jazz club. To be very polite, Tobey Maguire is not a John Travolta or a Patrick Swayze. He completely lacks the panache required to exhibit a "dark side" and it comes off as being extremely funny and comical. Unfortunately that effect was not intentional.
Topher Grace (of "The 70s show" fame) plays his rival for a job at the Daily Bugle and subsequently becomes infected by Venom. Suffice to say that acting was never his strong point. He seems to be just another Tobey Maguire - able to play the dorky goof-off in the sitcom but not quite making the cut for the big screen especially in action flicks. Well, at least he is better at humour that Tobey Maguire. Hmmm...maybe Topher Grace as Spiderman would have been an interesting experiment - at least he can carry off that sarcasm part well.
Of course, my biggest gripe with any big-screen adaptation (which wasn't as evident in the first two movies) is a distinct divergence from the comic book (Spiderman universe) storyline. For example, the reason Peter Parker meets Gwen Stacy (in the books at least) is because she studies with him and then is taken in my Aunt May when her father is killed in the line of duty. Both Gwen Stacy and her father receive about 5 minutes of footage and might as well have never been in the movie to begin with - their roles are pointless as far as Spiderman 3 goes.
Of yeah, I almost forgot - the overdose of drama and soap-opera'ish storylines. This movie has just too much of it, and considering that this is an action movie that is unacceptable. In fact, if someone had walked in to the movie about 15 minutes of its start and then watched the next half an hour, he would be puzzled and would think, "did I walk into the the wrong movie? I thought this was an action blockbuster. This looks and feels like a chick flick?" This is especially relevant, because as I mentioned above, most of the actors in the movie fell flat while trying to carry off the serious "acting" stuff that they're supposed to do when they are in front of a camera.
One other big problem with this movie - the direction and screenplay. There is no flow between the various events and scenes. A lot of unrelated and unnecessary parts made the cut. It seems like the entire package was put together in a hurry. Not hard to believe considering the enormous budget - I guess it must have been ballooning at an alarming rate and the studio must have put its foot down and forced Sam Raimi's hand to finish it in a hurry. Or, perhaps he was just bored with the entire thing. As a friend put it - maybe the actors, the director and crew were so tired of the entire thing that they decided to kill the movie franchise by doing a bad job!
Perhaps the guy who made (and markets) the Dyson vacuum cleaners might sell more of them if he changed his tagline to - "Dyson: sucks as much as Spiderman 3"!
_________________
