Eye candy!

This is a girl's opinion about the movie '300'.

It wasn't brilliant. The men were extra ordinary though. I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a macho-bloodlust kind of film, or an eye candy movie for the ladies. (Other than Ocean's 11, I haven't seen so many good looking men act together)

Although the trailers looked simply outstanding, the movie was very monochromatic. Frank Miller is a great graphic artist and the dark nature of the battle was very well portrayed in the movie. However one wished that there was more colour added to the landscape. After a while, you want to get rid of that dull and dreary feeling. (One of the reasons why Gladiator and Troy were so much better)

Again, the movie was good, but not extra-ordinary. The plot was really simple. Nothing there to think about. Leonidas led 300 Spartans to war against Xerxes' army of thousands.

Now Xerxes in the movie was black. Are Persians supposed to be black? And excuse me, he looked gay. Was that true to the story? I don't know. Can anyone please answer that? What a transformation for Rodrigo Santoro however! He looks so good in reality.

I was disappointed with the script as well. A great script can carry a movie on its shoulders no matter how simple it is. Except for a few lines like 'Tonight we dine in hell' and a few other situational lines, the script was very run of the mill. Nothing that I would specifically remember.

However, it is the actors passion that makes this movie worth watching. Gerard Butler, David Wenham, Vincent Regan, Micheal Fassbender are brilliant. Their enthusiasm shines through.

I'd give it 3 and a half stars just for the boys!

Absolut Stupidity

If I had to spend 18 years in prison being wrongly accused of a crime I did not commit, there would be two things I would want to do after I'm acquitted. First, sue the court of justice, and if I do not get a resonable settlement, then hunt all members of the jury who declared me guilty and kill them. Least of all, I would expect the'court of Justice' to cut 'living expenses' from the settlement I recieve.

What I lose from being in prison is opportunity cost. Yes, I could have earned much lower than what I recieved in the settlement, but then, I could have also earned much higher an income, partnered Bill Gates in his humanitarian campaigns, married Prince William and inherited a fortune. Maybe this seems far and beyond (and silly), but if Bush can be president anything's possible.

Which is why my sympathies are with Michael and Vincent Hickey, who were wrongly convicted and spent 46 years in prison. Their settlements were subject to 25% deductions for their 'boarding and lodging' expenses in prison! Honestly, I cannot comprehend how the court could dish out such a ruling. What these two men lost in prison was not just money. They were isolated, had to spend time with convicted murderers/cheats/robbers/troublemakers etc, when they could have had a family, some quality social time and could have lived without the misconception of being a murderer. Honour, pride, self dignity; all lost. The court makes a careless mistake and the victim pays for it?

This is absolute stupidity in its purest form. I'm from India where prisoners have to wait months, years, decades to get a hearing in the court. We look towards the west in our pursuit for perfection. But if the west lets down its people in such a shameful manner, what face would they have in front of the world.

Incest, a way of life?

My first reaction to incest is of disgust. My second reaction, is of disgust too. And my third reaction, well, its disgust again.

A German brother and sister are taking their fight 'for a sexual relationship' to court. The BBC in their website is following these proceedings and has attempted to explain the taboo that incestual relationships have. Many countries have banned incest and 'culprits' have been prosecuted. In this case, the brother and sister did not meet each other through their childhood and early teens, only later to meet and fall in love knowing that they were brother and sister.

Now personally, I cannot, just cannot comprehend how that happens. I have a huge family and many among them are smart and savvy guys - whom I haven't met for ages. But, even after meeting them, I can never ever think of getting into a 'relationship' with them. It makes me cringe. But then, maybe its how my beliefs have shaped me.

I know people cannot be forced into not doing anything. And the more you try to impose restrictions on them, the more they want to do it. Especially when it comes to supposedly 'moral' issues like these. No one accepted being gay or lesbian earlier. But now its come to be a part of normal society. But where do you draw a line? Although I would find accepting incestual relationships very distressing, I cannot choose to clamp down on a fellow humans' personal liberties. Which is why I find, people being jailed or prosecuted for this 'crime' really silly.

We're all animals yeah? We're just behaving like we're genetically programmed. Right?

I can live.. with or without you

I haven't seen too many happy marriages. And yet to me, marriages are sacred and in a world where everything else is temporary, it should be permanent. Which is why I always cringe on reading articles like 'Start with the end in mind when it comes to marriage' in the FT dated 4th March, 07. The author in this article talks about the importance of a pre-nuptial agreement (especially if you're rich and famous) and why the government in Britain should recognise them. My heart completely rubbish(es) the comments he makes and though a little part of my brain knows that it all makes sense, I beg to differ.

Firstly, starting a marriage with the end in mind is not the most romantic of all situations. Although at a time when 13% of every 1000(1) people in England and Wales file for divorce every year, a pre-nup agreement may seem like a necessary evil. The author in the article says 'Marriage is like a market' where demand and supply play an equal role in bringing satisfaction. Obviously if you marry someone you don't think/see as your equal, differences are bound to crop up sooner or later. I would understand if marriages fail after a year or two, where couples recognise their incompatibility but in marriages spanning decades, I just don't get it!!

Allowing for pre-nup agreements will only make people less responsible towards their marriages and families. I may sound horribly right wing here, but the moral fibre of society will only degrade with easy access to laws that allow for breaking up. Marriage do not fail because one suddenly becomes incompatible with his/her partner. They fail because people are too selfish to put in enough effort to make it succeed.

References:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5301270.stm