Note : When I say worst movie, I only consider the movies from which I expected at least sense. So most of the Salman Khan and those kind of movies don’t count. These movies form a completely different league.
Before Sunday I thought “Raincoat” was the worst movie I have ever seen. Then I saw “Pulp Fiction” and I suddenly started to feel that Raincoat was not such a bad movie after all.
Pulp Fiction was released in mid 90s and I had heard quite a few good things for sometime now.
When I got the CD of this film I was really excited. I wanted to watch it for a long time and finally my wish was gonna come true. One of the main reasons why I was so excited abt this movie was because of its star cast (like Indian Cricket team, awesome on paper).
The movie started of very well with a dialog between Travolta and SL Jackson. At that stage I thought this is going to be one heck of a movie. However, what followed after that left me completely dumbstruck ! I am not sure about the thing I watched being a movie at all. I cannot tell you anything about the story because there was none. The only thing different in the movie was that the sequence of scene was haphazard. Infact I feel that this a an interesting way of presenting the movie. But this, as I said, was not a movie at all. It was a nightmare, a disaster, an absolute shocker. I can understand if someone like Parag Sarfare or Manoj Arya like it (because these are weird people when it comes to liking a movie) but why anyone else would like it and more than that, why this movie was nominated for 7 Oscars is absolutely and completely beyond me.
So if anybody gets a chance to watch this movie, for good god’s sake, skip it !!
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Learn to play Warne or lose 5-0.
No surprises that Aussies stream-rolled England in the first test. All the hype that the English media had created, about this England side giving Aussies a run for their money, has gone to the cleaners.
To their credit, England bowlers did manage to take 20 wickets, but they should have restricted the Aussies well below 380 in second innings. But then if u drop 6 catches against Australia then there is no way that u can even put up a fight. For me that is not the problem area because I don’t expect England to repeat their poor performance in the field. The major concern for England is their batting. It was abysmal to say the least. No team can face McGrath on a pitch like the one lords had panned out this time around. But my gut feel is that on a better track English batsmen will be able to him. They showed glimpses of the same in their second innings.
The biggest problem which they have is facing Mr Shane Warne. None of the English batsmen had any clue what Warne was bowling. I have seen the great leggie trouble batsmen in the past but the way he troubled English players was something different. I thought that England will do their homework on Warne but it seems that they neglected Warne completely in their team meetings. There was no plan whatsoever on how to face the man. They were just not able to pick the straight delivery. The only man who stood out of was the debutant Pieterson. May be because of his Hampshire experience but he was the only one who was actually picking the straight delivery.
So in spite of the fact that Lee and McGrath pose great threat, if the English players don’t find a way to tackle Warne then there is no way they can even draw a match leave alone winning it.
Also why Michel Vaughan is in the English side is a mystery to me. He is worse than Ganguly !!
To their credit, England bowlers did manage to take 20 wickets, but they should have restricted the Aussies well below 380 in second innings. But then if u drop 6 catches against Australia then there is no way that u can even put up a fight. For me that is not the problem area because I don’t expect England to repeat their poor performance in the field. The major concern for England is their batting. It was abysmal to say the least. No team can face McGrath on a pitch like the one lords had panned out this time around. But my gut feel is that on a better track English batsmen will be able to him. They showed glimpses of the same in their second innings.
The biggest problem which they have is facing Mr Shane Warne. None of the English batsmen had any clue what Warne was bowling. I have seen the great leggie trouble batsmen in the past but the way he troubled English players was something different. I thought that England will do their homework on Warne but it seems that they neglected Warne completely in their team meetings. There was no plan whatsoever on how to face the man. They were just not able to pick the straight delivery. The only man who stood out of was the debutant Pieterson. May be because of his Hampshire experience but he was the only one who was actually picking the straight delivery.
So in spite of the fact that Lee and McGrath pose great threat, if the English players don’t find a way to tackle Warne then there is no way they can even draw a match leave alone winning it.
Also why Michel Vaughan is in the English side is a mystery to me. He is worse than Ganguly !!
Friday, July 15, 2005
Just the one glitch !
The new rules in one day cricket have indeed come as a breath of fresh air. The pattern of play was really getting predictable with slam bam action in the first 15 and last 10 overs and a lull in the middle period. Also with the 20-20 cricket getting international status, time had come for ICC to make some changes to keep general public’s interest in the one day version alive.
The 2 main changes made are really interesting. The power-play will make the game less predictable and captain will have to be on his toes for full 50 overs. The idea of substitution will also most welcome. In spite of the fact that the recently concluded series between Aussies and England did not show the magic of the changes in the format in its full colors, the changes will surely make the game more interesting.
The rule of having 3 power-plays seems to be absolutely fine. The idea of the rule of substitution is also perfect, however there is a major glitch in this rule the way it has been implemented. According to this rule, the team has to give their playing 11 and the 12th man before the toss. Here is where the problem dwells. Instead of making the game more square, it gives an added advantage for the team winning the toss. For instance suppose that a track is perfect for batting first. England have Simon Jones as substitute who will replace say Solanki after the innings change. Aussies have Brad Hogg as substitute who will replace say Hayden after the innings change. Now if England wins the toss then their substitution will work perfectly fine but for Aussies the substitute will be absolutely futile since replacing Hayden before he bats will be a more than just a gamble (that is if Aussie bowling is in trouble). This is exactly what happened in the last match of the 3-match series with England being the sufferers. The solution to this problem is quite simple. The teams should name a 12 member squad before the toss and name the player who will be the substitute only after the toss. Due to this both the teams will be able to use their substitutes to the fullest.
Hope that ICC makes this one change after 10 months of trial period.
The 2 main changes made are really interesting. The power-play will make the game less predictable and captain will have to be on his toes for full 50 overs. The idea of substitution will also most welcome. In spite of the fact that the recently concluded series between Aussies and England did not show the magic of the changes in the format in its full colors, the changes will surely make the game more interesting.
The rule of having 3 power-plays seems to be absolutely fine. The idea of the rule of substitution is also perfect, however there is a major glitch in this rule the way it has been implemented. According to this rule, the team has to give their playing 11 and the 12th man before the toss. Here is where the problem dwells. Instead of making the game more square, it gives an added advantage for the team winning the toss. For instance suppose that a track is perfect for batting first. England have Simon Jones as substitute who will replace say Solanki after the innings change. Aussies have Brad Hogg as substitute who will replace say Hayden after the innings change. Now if England wins the toss then their substitution will work perfectly fine but for Aussies the substitute will be absolutely futile since replacing Hayden before he bats will be a more than just a gamble (that is if Aussie bowling is in trouble). This is exactly what happened in the last match of the 3-match series with England being the sufferers. The solution to this problem is quite simple. The teams should name a 12 member squad before the toss and name the player who will be the substitute only after the toss. Due to this both the teams will be able to use their substitutes to the fullest.
Hope that ICC makes this one change after 10 months of trial period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)