Palin is a parody!

A parody, in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation.

If anyone saw Tina Fey’s imitation of Palin on SNL, about Palin’s response to the bailout bill, you would probably know whats different. Tina Fey used the exact same words and the exact same intonations, pauses and body language that Palin used. Palin’s comment was so ridiculous that it was a parody in itself.

This is not even funny at this moment. Does GOP really think the voters are that desperate for another Republican term? I never thought I would say this, Palin makes even Bush seem more qualified!

Obama has Humor!!

In response to Letterman quizzing him on the “lipstick on a pig” comment, Obama came back, saying, “…had I meant it that way, she (Palin) would have been the lipstick, and Mccain’s failed policies would be the pig!”. And Letterman goes… “you are way ahead of me there!”

Bangkok – Not so Dangerous!

Let me preface by saying, I am a huge fan of Cage. He is one of the few actors who always brings style to the front in all his movies. I still cannot forget the scene from Face-off where he boards the plane, or the unassuming Memphis Raines in GI60S. Cage has now gotten in to the habbit of starring in remakes of older pictures, Gone in 60 Secs, Wicker Man, Ghost Rider and now Bangkok Dangerous! For a man of his talents he could have chosen better movies, but thats not to be!!

Whoever thought of remaking Bangkok Dangerous, should have to be committed. The movie just did not have anything in it at all. Just Cage talking about himself as a hit man, suddenly out of the blue takes an interest in a mute girl, and takes on a protege. The movie starts by Cage talking about his rules, and not 5 mins have passed on, when he breaks all of them. None of the assasination scenes makes sense. One scene he is formulating a plan for killing someone important ( a series of unconnected, cliched, unexplained, fast moving scenes), and the next sec the scene just goes blank. Not devoid of action, just black and blank.

The so-called love scenes with the deaf-mute girl are downright ridiculous. They are excruciatingly slow and painfully silent. The girl keeps gigling about everything in the movie. I was literally willing the movie to move on. None of the action scenes are of any interest. The final gun-fight is too simple and takes too long. I dont know why you would direct a 30-sec shootout of just two guys across water cans? It just doesnt make sense. It felt like someone from first year of college directed this movie.

Overall, it was a very disjoint, complicated, uninteresting and downright aweful movie to watch. Its not a “bad” movie. Some people can actually like “bad” movies. This one was just not supposed to be a movie. Its worse than bad. There is nothing in the movie to engage the audience. By the time I walked out of the movie hall, the audience were just taking to themselves, checking sms, and who could blame them? Your money is better spent elsewhere.

Blackjack, 21 and the Monty Hall Problem

Saw the movie 21 on Saturday. I have always been a fan of Kevin Spacey and this guy keeps impressing me with every one of his portrayals. Overall the movie was a bit too long. It was a two hour plus movie which could have easily been completed in about an hour thirty. Loved the part about the Monty Hall problem.

For the uninitiated, Monty Hall was a game show host on “Let’s make a Deal”. The problem goes something like this. “Given three doors, with a car behind one, and goats behind the other two, you choose door1, the host then opens up door 3 to show a goat and offers you an option to switch your choice. Is it to your advantage to switch? “. I initially thought that once the third door is opened, your probability of getting it right was 50-50. But apparently I was wrong. By actually switching your choice, you get a 2/3rd probability of winning the prize, as explained here. Being a bit of a math buff, I found that very interesting and non-intuitive.

Coming back to the movie, Kevin Spacey was the typical smooth talking conspiratory character. He has got that part down ever since Usual Suspects. Jim Sturgess was fresh and was quite comfortable playing either the geek or the high-roller. At the cost of repeating myself, the movie was just a bit too long. How many times does one have to see how Jim spends his money. Same BJ tables, same four moves, same laughter at winning money etc. The director could have spent more time on the mathematical aspects of the game, instead of repeating the Vegas scenes as many times. Overall its a good-to-watch movie, if you dont have to get anywhere else in a hurry. Have fun!

Porting Over

Ok now what. Upon good review from the Mrs, I am now on the wordpress bandwagon. Hopefully this will be more regular from my previous writing. And wordpress allows me to import everything here too. How cool is that ??

Whats the deal with racial abuse?

I am sure most of you have been sync-ed up on the racial abuse charge against the Turbonator, and the furore its created in the news media. The Indian Cricket Team is quite pissed about this, saying that there wasnt enough evidence to charge Harbhajan Singh. Mind you, the team is not saying that it didnt happen, just that there wasnt enough evidence on which to make a judgement. Aussies complained that Bhajji called Symmie a monkey. Allow me to repeat that… a “Monkey”. No doubt thats offensive, but how is it racial abuse? Would calling Ranatunga an elephant constitute a racial abuse? Whats the definition of racial abuse? If Aussies argue that Symmie was called a monkey because of his color, then is it fine to call Ponting a monkey? And monkey is not even that offensive a word in India. We worship Hanuman in India and have cartoons for our kids to learn of Hanuman and such. I just dont get it. Yes I have myself been a culprit of tagging someone as a monkey, but that usually means that he/she is a trouble maker or someone who plays pranks all the time. Its never been about color/creed/religion. Infact history teaches us that we are all descendants of apes. Is that a racial slur now?
On the other end of the geographic spectrum, we are getting ready for the 
presidential elections in the US. The democrats have an african american and a woman (is that a slur too?) as their frontrunners. There has been much talk about the candidate’s gender/color/race/religion coming in the way of people voting for them. The ideal population would chose the right person to lead their nation, but we dont live in a ideal world. People are being constantly reminded with newscasts that a persons color/gender should not be a deciding factor. But could that possibly be overdone? What happens if people decide to vote based on not wanting to be branded racist? What if Obama gets the votes, just because people dont want to be seen as anti-blacks? Or if Clinton gets the votes, just cause people dont want to be seen as anti-women? Unfortunately there is no clear cut answer to this. Maybe having the first woman president would be great for this country. But there again, maybe having Obama who has the least experience of the candidates might actually bring fresher ideas . I guess time will tell. Till then please refrain from calling someone a monkey! Ciao.