If you’re a fan of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, this movie won’t appeal to you too much. If anything, it’s even more of an action movie than a game of wits. The clever deductions that are so typical of Mr Holmes have been replaced instead by cinematography of the ilk of that fight scene from the first movie.

But if you forget the fact that this is a Sherlock Holmes story, then A Game of Shadows is a very good movie. It’s all about Holmes’ anticipation and Ritchie’s special effects and excellent non-stop action instead. Go in without any bias and you will enjoy this movie.

The characters of Holmes and Watson are pretty much par for the course, and Downey Jr and Law pick up from where they left off in the last movie. The character of James Moriarty is weak. While he’s portrayed as being an evil genius, I needed to be convinced of his genius more through the plot’s narration than through the actions of the character on screen. I have no complaints with the acting of Jared Harris, though, whose expressions and overall acting were top-notch.

The outstanding Stephen Fry (centre) captures the screen in every scene he's present in.

I must mention Stephen Fry, who plays the role of Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft Holmes. Fry is absolutely fantastic in this role, completely captivating the audience in every scene in which he’s present—never overacting or underacting.

Final Verdict—All put together, this is a good movie, if you can forgive the change in Holmes’ powers of deduction and general method of doing things. It’s not terribly clever, but it keeps you hooked with quality entertainment for the entire duration.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Ghost Protocol is simpler. It’s got a very linear storyline involving nuclear missiles (which big action movie hasn’t involved nukes lately, eh?). So obviously our secret agents have to save the world, and they do. Unlike the original Mission: Impossible, which had an interesting story to go along with that wonderful scene in the computer room, Ghost Protocol is all about slick special effects. The special effects, cinematography and the action sequences in general are really good, though.

Tom Cruise is too old to be playing these roles. He looks old, man; even the make-up cannot help. If they ever decide to another Mission: Impossible movie, I reckon he should look to pass on the baton. It’s painful to watch him do those stunts. In every action sequence, my subconscious was asking me exactly how much trouble and pain he would have had to go through to carry them out.

And a bit about Anil Kapoor. DEAR GOD! What in the name of crap was he thinking when he agreed to that role? He played the most ridiculous character and he was far too embarrassing to be funny. He couldn’t deliver his lines properly, he played to the tune of the stereotypical Indian rich brat. In fact, even that’s false. No rich spoilt millionaire, Indian or not, would act like a complete idiot the way he did. In an otherwise serious and completely watchable movie, Anil Kapoor descends with sheer stupidity like a blanket of blackness, spoiling the experience so completely.

Bottom line: Ghost Protocol is a simple, straight-forward, no-apologies action movie which is not really dumb, but doesn’t particularly require you to exercise your brain too much either. Apart from the annoyance of the minor character of Anil Kapoor, the rest of the actors do a good job. Everything has a quiet, functional reason to be there, and while Hollywood requires the suspension of disbelief, Ghost Protocol doesn’t overdo it the way the ridiculous M:i-2 did.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Its sequel, unfortunately, is nothing like it. This is a terrible movie and a terrible waste of time. There is a hint of a storyline, but you really struggle to find out which one it is. There are a couple of new interesting characters, but they don’t quite work. The sub-lot involving the krill is interesting, but if it was intended to be funny, it backfired. The genuinely funny moments are few and far between, and Robin Williams’ Mexican/Spanish penguin character gets wasted here.

The krill sub-plot is interesting, but rarely funny.

To put it briefly, this is a music for kids. It’s all about light and colour. There is no story, nothing to hold the interest of anyone above 12 years of age (and even in that number, I’m being rather lenient). Don’t watch this movie. It’s a huge let-down.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Anyway, back to clichés:

• The hero is irresponsible and an utter loser. He is supposedly an excellent fighter pilot. How in the world did a grade A loser ever become a fighter pilot? Seriously? And unlike Peter Parker, he is ripped even before he gets blessed with the magical powers of the ring of light (or whatever it’s called). Completely inconsistent character there.
• The villain too is a loser. I’m not kidding. I hereby propose this image to be the new Green Lantern logo:

L for Lantern, L for Loser

• There’s a girl and a best friend, and the amount of value they add to the plot is equal to the amount of brains you have if you enjoyed this movie.
• The plot is insanely predictable. Here, let me sum it up for you: Loser gets “chosen”. Loser gets the crap kicked out of him by other Green Lanterns. Loser saves hot girlfriend. Girlfriend dumps loser for being a loser. Loser gets epiphany. Loser defeats alien which has been devouring other planets whole. Loser becomes responsible grown up. Everyone goes home happy. Except the audience.

There’s actually a hell of a lot of potential in this movie. The powers of the Green Lantern ring give rise to so many possibilities. Think about it—a ring that lets you materialise anything you can think of, out of pure energy. What was required to harness that potential is probably a gutsy, intelligent scriptwriter, and a director with vision.

Instead, we get a film tailored to make money, following every letter of the tried and tested formula. The hero is your average everyday loser, so that the audience can identify with him (but even this goes wrong because he’s an awesome fighter pilot and lives in a very swanky, huge apartment…oh, also he’s got a body carved like Michelangelo worked on it). And because everyone wants a hot girlfriend, he automatically gets one, though it’s never quite explained how or even WHY she’s in love with him. Hero’s faced a personal tragedy (dad was a pilot who died in a crash in front of the son’s eyes), but this fact is never used for the rest of the movie. Hero has to be rejected by his love before he becomes a serious superhero. Hero is an underdog because humans are supposedly too weak to be Green Lanterns. And yet, this puny unimportant human being defeats the greatest evil force in the world. YAY FOR US HUMANS! Yet another film that projects us as the greatest life forms in the universe! HURRAH!

There’s so much wrong with this movie that I don’t even know how much of it to write about. Paper-thin, predictable and insultingly simple plot. Underdeveloped characters. Lack of imagination. You’re better off spending that time reading my blog…seriously.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Aarakshan Theatrical Poster

But you know it’s a bad sign when the movie begins (more or less) with a song. However, the action does move along fairly briskly. We get an introduction to each character, and then the SC judgement in favour of reservation creates all kinds of problems all of a sudden. Yay, so far so good…what I’d expected from the movie, it was delivering. In fact, I was tingling to see on which side the movie would lean and how it would present itself without displeasing the people on the other side of the fence.

And yet, a short while later, the movie completely loses its marbles (pun intended). The OBC reservation becomes a backdrop to something else entirely. It becomes a typical Hindi movie, a tale of personal vendetta. Amitabh Bachchan plays the role of a principled educationist hell bent on challenging the system. Manoj Bajpayee is absolutely brilliant in the role of a corrupt opportunist. Easily, the best actor. Saif Ali Khan hammed his way through. Deepika Padukone is pretty. Were we to expect more from her?

Anyway…the plot itself is in shambles. After starting off with the whole reservation fight, the movie veers off into the evils of professional coaching classes. The solution? Free coaching centres, in the guise of “remedial centres”. It’s a ridiculous. The film doesn’t tell us how these free remedial centres will sustain themselves. Nor does it really give an answer to the question everyone would have been hoping for—is reservation a good thing?

All in all, this is a movie that just falls flat of all expectations. Even the actors fail to live up to any sort of expectations, with the exception of Amitabh Bachchan, against whom it’s not easy to find fault, and Manoj Bajpayee, who was truly outstanding in every scene he was present in.

Rating: 3/10 – and I normally am very generous with my ratings, if only to acknowledge the effort put in by the film-makers.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

And then there are bands whose music I love just the way it is, and I wish they don’t change. For me, Incubus’ golden period was during the albums Make Yourself, Morning View and A Crow Left of the Murder. And now, after Light Grenades, I’ve got my hands on their latest album—If Not Now, When?

Album Cover: Incubus - If Not Now, When?

I wanted to write a scathing review of this album. It’s everything Incubus were not meant to be. They’ve progressed from an awesome rock band into a bunch of guys who get together in someone’s house and make up tunes. The album is full of soft rock songs, perfect for background music while you do something else. Don’t get me wrong. The title track kind of sets the tone. It’s a slow, dull, monotonous chug-along song. Jose Pasillas’ drumming is more or less single-beat, Boyd’s vocals are uninspired (whatever that word means). The next few songs just come and go without your realising that there’s something going on here. The first song that piqued my interest and kept me hooked was the 7-minute long “In the Company of Wolves”, when finally every member of the band puts effort in to do something special, to earn the millions of dollars they will get from the sales of this CD. The second half of the album is definitely better, there’s a lot more going on.

But the reason why this isn’t a scathing review is because I’m going to give credit where it’s due. I do miss the hard rock, energetic music of ye olde Incubus (maybe that’s why I’m bitter?). But Mike Einziger is fantastic throughout this album, even in the simple riffs he executes so brilliantly. Ben Kenney, stepping into the big shoes left behind by Dirk Lance, once again is outstanding (he was brilliant in ACLOTM and Light Grenades too). The bottom line is this: Incubus have changed. They’re no longer punks or hardass rockers. They’re much softer, simpler, catchier, more pop. It’s ok, because it’s soft music with a little bit of depth if you listen for the sound of the guitars.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

First up, Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. The supposedly funniest book of all time, according to me, was a little overrated. For most of the book, I found myself asking “Why?”. Why is this book so hyped up? Why has it got so much praise? One of the answers is that maybe for its time, it was. Black Sabbath, in their time, were considered the heaviest band in the world. Comparing them to present day bands, they’re not heavy at all. The plot and multiple sub-plots in Catch 22 are ridiculous. But today, Douglas Adams (RIP) and Terry Pratchett, just to name a couple of authors I’m aware of, do that kind of ridiculous plot humour really well. As the plot began to reach the climax, however, I found myself positively hooked. I did not want to put the book down, and that’s one mark of a really good story. It grabs hold of you and doesn’t let go.

And this brings me to the first of the 2 Indian books — Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger. He’s won the Booker Prize for this. I kept asking myself why? The writing is far from a literary marvel. I mean, there are barely any metaphors or clever writing techniques. The sentences are not complex or eloquent. There is a distinct lack of flair. But the plot…now that’s a different story altogether. Right from the first page, the book is un-putdownable. The writing style is extremely engrossing. And the tone is not the tone of a preacher. It’s not the tone of a cynic who has declared that India has no future and no scope for development. It is, though, the tone of an angry young man, ranting in a subdued manner about what’s wrong with our country. It’s hard-hitting without becoming blockbuster and exaggerated. It’s simple in its narrative and it states the shameful truth as a matter of fact.

In contrast, the few pages of Gregory David Roberts’ Shantaram that I have read so far are quite a big disappointment. It’s such a terrible cliché to read about a foreigner who lands in Bombay (or any other city in the country for that matter) and immediately start gushing about all the sights and sounds, colours and splashes of life. So far, in the book, he’s only seen the slums and the crowded streets of Bombay, and he’s fallen in love with them. He’s met only one girl, and he claims she’s the most beautiful girl he’s ever met. The moment he laid eyes on her, time froze while everything around them goes on in its hustle and bustle without their noticing. Annoying! It’s like an amateur’s first story. Once again, like with Catch 22, I’m left asking–WHY? Why is such a big deal being made of this book? Hopefully, the plot will thicken and it will become more engrossing. (Watch this space!)

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The Dark Knight epitomised superhero movies for months after it was released, eclipsing the effect of the emotional, colourful Spiderman world with its black flair, seriousness and a truly psychotic villain (Joker/Heath Ledger). Enter Iron Man—an escape from the drudgery and gritty melancholy of The Dark Knight. It was fun, it was colourful and it was enjoyably over the top.

And that’s where Iron Man 2 has a great fall, going from “over the top” to “just plain ridiculous” most of the time. Suffering from the effects of using his Iron Man suit too much (a plotline that’s just thrown at you inexplicably a short while after film starts), Tony Stark starts doing things that one would think were too crazy even for Stark. Then he also goes down a path of self-destruction, which makes you roll your eyes in disbelief at what the director throws at you. Robert Downey Jr is probably the best choice to play Stark, but even he has trouble carrying off his new personality. Where has the wit gone? Where has the fun gone? In the first movie, Stark was irresistible, threw one-liners like a pro and his cockiness was enjoyable. In the second movie, he goes from one extreme to the next. When he attempts to be the Stark from the first movie, he gets highly annoying, something you don’t want your protagonist to become. And when he attempts to draw the audience’s sympathy, well, he fails miserably. But maybe that’s just because Tony Stark’s character isn’t meant to draw sympathy at all. Also, while we’re on the topic of Stark/Iron Man, I would have liked to have seen a few more Iron Man sequences than Tony Stark sequences.

Moving on to other characters then. Mickey Rourke deserves a mention for trying to do a good job. I couldn’t find much fault with his acting, which was limited, I felt, by the role he was offered. Scarlett Johansson is flawless…in appearance. Thank you, God, for creating her. Of course, it’s another story that she comes across as robotic as possible, and her action sequences reminded me painfully of Daredevil, one of the worst superhero movies I’ve ever seen. Gwyneth Paltrow was also much more likeable in the first movie, and somehow, the chemistry between Potts (Paltrow) and Stark (Downey Jr) is unfortunately colder than the first movie, despite them finally kissing. However, hers was the character that I most enjoyed, as Potts remains true to her devotion for Stark. The rest of the cast are ok too, but I cannot help questioning the casting of Don Cheadle as Lt. Colonel James Rhodes, a role played well by Terence Howard in the first movie. Don’s eyes are far too expressive and his face is far too serious to play Rhodes. Also, I’d like to make a special mention of actor Sam Rockwell, who plays arguably the most annoying character in the film, Justin Hammer.

All in all, too many things about this movie are annoying and so far away from reality that one really needs to leave one’s brains at home. I don’t mind explosions and special effects (which are generally not bad), but I like them when they’re at least remotely believable. The quality of the action sequences places this movie just a notch above crap like Charlie’s Angels and Daredevil, which is far from a compliment.

All in all, if you are going to watch this movie expecting it to pick up where the original left off, please lower your expectations. It does not. But you will want to watch it just to follow the storyline and be in touch with the inevitable sequel. And though I hate saying this about movies, if you want to “enjoy” this one, leave your brains at home.

Rating: 6/10

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

What most bloggers seem not to do too well is to reply to the few comments that they do get. I’m going to try to make some points here about the right etiquette for replying to comments on your blog posts or stories.

1. Always reply to every comment (or commenter)…individually. You have to realise that getting comments is not your right. It’s nothing short of an honour that someone has taken time out to read your post, and then taken some more time out to type a comment on it. Unless you thank them for their comment or post a reply to their reply, they will be discouraged from writing comments for you in the future.
2. Always reply to every comment (or commenter)…individually. It was important enough to repeat as point 2.
3. If you do not want your comments thread to go haywire, try to keep spam and off-topic replies to a minimum. Of course, you cannot prevent others from posting off-topic stuff in the comments, but you can actively avoid doing it yourself. That might help.

As a writer, I love getting detailed feedback on my writing, from how the characters of my story were perceived to how the pace of the story was fine (or not fine). I try to do the same thing for others. I have, in the past when time permitted it, spent hours writing a detailed critique for others on Storiesmania. The response I usually got was what made it all worthwhile, and made it worth doing the same thing again. But I’ve also seen that sometimes when I write a good length review, when someone posts nothing but a “thanks!” in return, I never bother spending time writing them a proper comment again.

Maybe I’m just being a little demanding, but put yourself in a commenter’s position. Unless you can make the commenter feel that his comment is valued, you will not be getting any valuable comments.

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

For most of this review, I’m going to compare aspects of Prince of Persia with The Sands of Time game released in 2003. This is primarily because The Sands of Time has, for me, defined what Prince of Persia is all about, or should be all about. However, I will also try to judge this game on its own merits, seeing as how it’s a completely new project not based on The Sands of Time trilogy.

Let’s start off with the basics—the story. It’s a simple enough plot. The unnamed ‘Prince’ is a common tomb-raider, a thief, who loses his donkey with a full load of treasure in a desert storm. Out of nowhere, a running Elika stumbles into his path, and the story begins. Elika is a Princess whose father has let loose Ahriman, an evil God bent on releasing corruption and darkness onto the world. It’s up to Elika, with the Prince’s help of course, to contain Ahriman and save the world. The problem is that the finer details of the plot just don’t tie up, and there is an inherent inconsistency in the story and the characters that attempt to tie it up. For instance, the Prince is portrayed as generally self-centred, mistrusting and a bit of a loner who would not go out of his way to help others. Yet, for some reason, he embarks on this long, treacherous journey with a mysterious lady with magical powers. It leaves me questioning why he would do anything for her. There’s also no major development in the relationship that the characters share, and the attachment the Prince develops for Elika towards the end of the game seems contrived, somehow. The story, when compared with The Sands of Time, leaves a bit to be desired. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and the ending doesn’t quite leave you wanting more. A perfect ending to a game should leave you wanting more and yet somehow satisfied in revelling in the glory of the game. This is a feeling I’ve felt at the end of most of the truly great games, but not here.

The story, however, is just one small part of a game. Gameplay is a lot more important, of course. Prince of Persia’s gameplay can be very roughly divided into categories—platforming and combat. The platforming is solid and aesthetically pleasing. The Prince is more acrobatic than ever before and many new moves have been introduced, such as the ability to crawl on ceilings. The controls are simple and very forgiving, making the game easier than I would have imagined. There are barely any timed sequences like there were in the previous games, which takes away a fair amount of challenge from the game. Combat is interesting and fights are always against a single opponent only. This makes battles intense and generally quite long-lasting. It may take a while to get accustomed to the combat, but once you do, it’s fun to watch the Prince pull together complex combos in tandem with Elika, whose attacks are controlled by the player as well. However, because the fights are generally quite similar, it leads to the possibility of players developing a strong preference for a certain combo or two, which can make combat sequences seem remarkably repetitive and mundane. Also, the Prince never dies, never in combat and never while platforming. For every mistimed jump or overshot ledge, Elika saves you. Everytime a foe is about to deliver a fatal blow during combat, Elika saves you. Combine this aspect with the not very challenging platforming, and you have a game that, in my opinion, is far too easy. While it’s fine to have a game that embraces new players, I would have liked a bit more of a challenge. A few deaths before finishing the game would have been welcome too.

The Prince of Persia series is also known for incorporating a number of puzzles into the game. While this game continues that tradition, I personally felt that the difficulty level of the puzzles was also not too high, since I could solve most of the puzzles in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. And when I say “most of the puzzles”, it may sound like there’re a lot, but really, there aren’t too many. The boss battles, which were quite innovative and challenging in the last POP game (The Two Thrones), are not quite as innovative here. They consist of the same kind of combat that you would have been engaged in throughout the game, so there’s barely anything special about them. Each boss battle is broken into parts, probably to give the player a bit of relief to break up what could end up being very long fights, but each part is identical, unlike the boss battles from TTT that required platforming and timed silent kills to emerge victorious.

The music and ambient sounds of the game are not bad, but not spectacular either. The theme fits in very well and the atmosphere during the menus is a tribute to Elika, who steals the spotlight for majority of the game. In fact, it feels like this game is more of Elika’s story and the Prince just happens to be a side-kick. The voice acting for Elika is great, but the same can’t be said for the Prince, who speaks in a very thick American accent and happens to pass comments that are occasionally not very witty, and very frequently, typical of smartass American quips. It’s clichéd and gets old pretty fast.

However, let not my negative comments deter you from playing this game. If you are a fan of the Prince of Persia series or even if you just want to play a good platforming game, then you shouldn’t miss out on this game. The graphics and atmosphere are magical and fun to behold. The Prince’s movements and animation are smooth, and Elika is brilliant, proving to be a wonderful companion, always available for support but not once getting in your way. The Prince of Persia is a game that somewhat falls short of the promise showed during the trailers, but it’s still a pretty good game nonetheless. Go play!

Rating: 8/10

This post was originally published on my blog, Thought Overflow | For poetry and more of my writing, check out my website at Gurdit.com.

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh