The BlockHole

Thank god for things like Mac the Ripper... who wants to be at the mercy of judges like this and the MPAA (or the RIAA)? Isn't it mysterious how the big lobbies can get 'justice on demand' when it affects their bottom lines? Although I must admit I'm no fan of RealNetworks.

So now Justing Langer is worried about dressing room barbs he might have to endure when he returns to England to do what Aussie cricketers do best - act all matey, make a decent packet and go home chuckling to themselves as to how pathetic the English are. Damn the leak!!! Methinks, despite the temporary blushes, Langer is pretty sure he'll be quite alright. He is no pussy after all.

Watching The International (now I didn't have great expectations, the exclamations on the VCD cover not withstanding) left me with the same old feeling that is quite effectively described by 'KLPD'. Now it wasn't bad, in fact it was downright good in parts and Clive Owen was quite convincing and looked like he took the part seriously (Naomi Watts, otoh, didn't have much to do anyway). But something about thrillers bothers one these days - can't Hollywood with its gazillions and armies of writers create a single f**king spy/detective thriller that holds your attention and actually gets your paisa vasool? The last thriller that I was impressed with was The Mist, based on a Stephen King story, with its excellent ending - even though Marcia Gay Harden's religious nut character was a bit of a caricature and the giant spiders could have been, well, better. But for the last decent spy thriller, I have to go right back to Spy Game.

Exhibit Z: Thanks to Amit Varma / India Uncut, this story about Shiney Ahuja's lawyer. You would think this lawyer would be taken to task, perhaps in a manner suggested by Mr. Varma - but I'm not sure he would be, even if I admit I have not followed the 'story' since. I also expected to see some pronouncements from Ahuja's wife in IU's WTF posts. Now, the lady might sincerely believe her husband is innocent or even that he has been framed (now that's pretty innovative!), but the evidence she presents to make her 'case' is mindnumbing - he doesn't even smoke!!! In a way, this country and society deserve (and breed) such characters, with its twisted sense of morality. No wonder the 'character' of victims of heinous crimes somehow becomes paramount.

- NK

The real question is, why is IE bending over and carrying these propaganda pieces? As it is, the media in India (at least English language outlets) faithfully publish press releases from US / Allied forces in 'AfPak', as if they were backed by incontrovertible evidence.

I hope its a passing bad phase and he can rediscover himself soon. Because we would like to see him get back to his old avatar where he was a facilitator for all the expert discussions and was not trying to that job by himself. Quite honestly, he underdstands very little of tennis and is even poorer when it comes to the history of the game. At least that is what is apparent.Especially with his rampant usage of words/phrases like "history being created", "genius" and many more!

The Murray-Wawrinka match was definitely an exciting one. And one can very well appreciate Wilkins' sentiments, him being a Welsh man. However, hasnt the British-man-winning-Wimbledon romance been done to death during the last two decades? First it was Henman which to me, was a ridiculous fantasy. Now its Murray which is definitely possible. But it doesnt grant a license even to Vijay Amritraj to pronounce him as a genius after something like a routine volley. And though it comes from Vijay, I dare say its gross injustice to words like that which deserves to be used only sparingly. When you do that you are creating hype right there.

Murray's first three rounds were Kendrick, Gulbis and Troicki which he was anyway expected to win in a canter. His first "test" (if it can be termed so) was Wawrinka, a top 20; but again someone whom Murray is expected to take in straight sets. Muray can definitely go ahead and win the tournament. But the commentators could have saved the superlatives and their limited vocabulary for the expectedly difficult matches to come and for more deserving circumstances.

Another big laugh was the phrase "British No. 1" being used generously all throughout the telecast of that match. I mean does anyone know (or care) who the British No. 2 is? Except for a period when Rusedski was sane, Britain had only one tennis player anyway!For arguments sake you can drop names like Arvind Parmar. But Oh Come on now, be a sport!

Footnote: The most exciting aspect of that match, to me, was seeing Wawrinka's devastating single handed backhand and not any of Murray's strokes of "genius".