Sunday

Movie Review : Sunday

 
 Sunday
Director :
Music :

Lyrics :

Starring :

 Rohit Shetty
 Sandeep Chowta, Suroor (Pakistani Band), Daler Mehndi, Shibani Kashyap, Raghav Sachar, Amar Mohile
 Farhad, Sajid, Kamran Bari, Daler Mehndi, Virag Mishra, Aditya Dhar
 Ajay Devgan, Arshad Warsi, Ayesha Takia, Irrfan Khan, Anjana Sukhani.

By Martin D’Souza, Bollywood Trade News Network

Send to Friend

view SUNDAY movie stills

view SUNDAY movie stills

Picture this: There is a cold blooded murder. Murli Sharma suspiciously hovers in the background near the place where the body is found. Great beginning. Director Rohit Shetty deserves a clap, just for the beginning.

For the next half hour the movie meanders along. You see goons who can easily pass off as buffoons trying to kill Ayesha Takia. She has no clue why, nor do we. During this time Rohit Shetty gets busy sketching the character played by Ajay Devgan. I guess, even he has no clue as to what to do. The end is something you would want someone to sit near you and explain! And yes, Murli Sharma is the one who had tucked Takia into her bedroom after finding her wandering on the streets of Delhi. What he was doing at the crime scene in the first place no one knows!!!

The story is about a day which goes missing in Ayesha’s life which connects what is happening to her now. It appears that Takia had gone to a night club with her friend on Saturday night and her drink was ‘spiked’ by two guys. From then on she spirals out of control on the streets of Delhi meeting five people along the way. The Sixth one tucks her in bed. She sleeps the entire Sunday. That explains the two milk packets kept outside her door on Monday morning. Makes sense? Not yet, right?. Forget it.

Mithya

Movie Review : Mithya

 
 Mithya
Director :
Music :
Starring :
 Rajat Kapoor
 Sagar Desai
 Naseruddin Shah, Neha Dhupia, Ranvir Shorey, Vinay Pathak.

By Martin D’Souza, Bollywood Trade News Network

Send to Friend

view MITHYA movie stills

view MITHYA movie stills

MITHYA is a very complicated film dealt with in an uncomplicated manner by director Rajat Kapoor. The director handles the complexities of the film and the central character with aplomb to first set your creative juices flowing as a viewer. Then, long after the credits have rolled, you begin to unravel the mystery of the plot. There is finesse in direction and maturity in handling of the story.

When you look at the film from the director’s point of view, you can feel his mind at play juggling with the various characters to paint a gripping drama. Though Ranvir is his trump card, he shuffles the other cast members around him to position them at telling points which lift the film to a different level. And when the final bullet pierces Ranvir at the end, your mind races back to Wolfgang Petersen’s 1991 thriller SHATTERED, that had a super climax. But here, it’s the anti-climax which works as the climax.

All the while you thought Ranvir was faking a memory loss, and were waiting for the director to deliver his final hit. But that does not come. What comes back is the recollection of his memory! For once the director has out-thought the viewer!!

Ranvir Shorey (VK) is a small town actor struggling to make it big. Unknowingly, he lands himself into the very vortex of underworld crime. His only fault – his face resembles that of the reigning Don (a double role played by Ranvir). Wanting to have the best of both worlds, the rival gang headed by Naseeruddin Shah (Gawade) abducts VK and puts him through physical torture before he agrees to impersonate the Don. Neha Dhupia (Sonam), who is Gawade’s mistress, has a big hand in helping him (VK) make up his mind. She tells him that her brother has been abducted by Gawde; hence she is in the plot. By now the two are in love and VK agrees to impersonate. From then on the movie moves on at a brisk pace keeping you on the edge of your seat.

Jodha Akbar

Movie Review : Jodhaa Akbar
 
 Jodhaa Akbar
Director :
Music :
Lyrics :
Starring :
 Ashutosh Gowarikar
 A R Rahman
 Javed Akhtar
 Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai, Sonu Sood, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Suhasini Mulay, Raza Murad & Punam Sinha.

By Martin D’Souza, Bollywood Trade News Network

Send to Friend

The timing of Ashutosh Gowariker’s Magnum Opus could not have been better. A love story set in the 16th century between the Mughal Emperor who ruled Hindustan (now India), Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, and a fiery young Rajput princess, Jodhaa. With love as the backdrop, and highlighting the Hindu-Muslim marriage of alliance culminating in love and respect for one another, a day after Valentine’s Day was an apt moment for its release. Moreover, with hate politics being on the agenda, the timing of its release could not have been better. JODHAA AKBAR surely comes as a soothing balm to every Indian. If watched closely, it sends a message loud and clear that country is above everything else, even self! For our warring politicians, for this message alone, this movie is worth many trips to the multiplex.

Viewed as a love story, it portrays beautifully, the defiance of Jodhaa, the Rajput girl who is asked to marry Akbar, a Muslim Emperor. Not one to bow down or suppress her voice, Jodhaa expresses two strong wishes to the Emperor. Only if he agrees will she marry him. The first being he will not force her to change her religion and the second; he will give her a place in his palace to have a temple of her own. Both wishes are granted!

Then comes the tough task of the Emperor trying to get close to Jodhaa. Slowly, she teaches him that winning battles is not everything… he learns to win her heart as well. For lovers, this is a beautiful rendition of a perfect love story.

Barack Obama’s Place In History

(US News) This story was written by U.S. News & World Report’s Jay Tolson.


Barack Obama says he stands for a new kind of politics, and many Americans clearly approve of that message. So many, in fact, that if the junior U.S. senator from Illinois doesn’t win the presidency or even prevail in what is now a dead-heat run for his party’s nomination, his candidacy will still be seen as what University of New Hampshire historian Harvard Sitkoff calls “an important moment in American political history.”

Important is an understatement. That a black man has mounted so successful a charge upon the nation’s highest political office speaks volumes about changes that have occurred in America even since Jesse Jackson made his own impressive bids for that office in 1984 and 1988. But to attribute too much of the significance of Obama’s achievement to changes in attitudes toward race is to slight the content of Obama’s message. That message is the promise of a politics of unity and change–a politics that acknowledges differences of identity and interest but at the same time insists upon the need for compromise and cooperation to achieve the common good.

It can be exhilarating, of course, this talk of a politics transcending party, faction, interest, and identity, but it is not really new. In the earliest days of the American republic, President George Washington called for just such a politics to halt what he saw as a debilitating slide toward partisan intransigence. And, to some degree, American politics ever since has vacillated between periods of intense factionalism and ones of relative national unity. The first decades after World War II, for example, are commonly described as an age of consensus, when a “vital center” prevailed.

If that center began to collapse in the late 1960s, it was completely destroyed during the past 15 years. The labels red and blue now define a partisan divide so profound that it seems to have produced two entirely different nations. That divide is itself sustained by a host of other divisions, including those of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, region, class, religion, and “values.” And what such identity politics has left unsundered, the war of special interests has further divided.

So what is it about this man with a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas-born mother that makes so many Americans believe it is possible to govern the nation differently? The answer, inescapably, leads back to race–and, specifically, to how Obama has dealt with it in his private and public life. (He has told much of that story in his two books, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope.) Obama’s struggle with the historical and personal realities of being an African-American in a nation whose original sin was its enslavement of Africans and whose enduring shame has been its unequal treatment of black people is what makes his talk of a politics that goes beyond identity and the special claims of group or interest seem so important. It is what challenges Americans of all walks and political persuasions to consider what this new politics might mean, for themselves and for their nation.

Many have concluded that it means a great deal. In a ringing endorsement that connected his brother JFK’s legacy with the inspirational qualities of the candidate, Ted Kennedy hailed Obama’s campaign as being “about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.” And even while emphasizing the racial significance of the Obama phenomenon, Sitkoff says that it is also about “getting beyond the identity politics, the rabid partisanship that we’ve seen for the last 15 years, expressed in the intense animus against both [Bill] Clinton and [George W.] Bush.”

Civil rights. Hillary Clinton and her supporters charge that talk of transcending partisanship is so much poetry and that it ignores the necessity of standing up for partisan principles. But this attak ignores that Obama’s conciliatory approach has not prevented him from working for a very liberal agenda in Congress.

The big question now, though, is whether Obama’s campaign can move enough Americans beyond their attachment to the dominant style of identity and special-interest politics. Given who Obama is, it is no small irony that that style began to take shape in the civil rights era of the Fifties and early Sixties, as the older system of machine and party politics was dying. The urban machine had served blacks at best unevenly, but it was of no use in overcoming the structural barriers of Jim Crow segregation and de facto disenfranchisement. And so a grass-roots movement dedicated to securing the full rights of black people emerged, galvanizing support and making headway through demonstrations, sit-ins, and other organized efforts to register voters and challenge racial barriers.

As a successful black civil rights movement morphed into a movement arguably focused more on securing particular, identity-related benefits–such as affirmative action–rather than leveling the playing field, it became the model for other identity groups, from women to Hispanics to people with disabilities.

The civil rights movement also contributed to the rise of what Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry calls “public interest politics,” with scores of organizations emerging to protect the environment, defend children, or bring about campaign finance reform. Lacking the tight bonds between leaders and followers that typified machine politics or even the older political parties, public-interest politics depended on publicity and the media to focus the public’s attention on their favored issues. As Skerry says, “It is a style of politics that is extremely rhetorical, exaggerates conflicts, and emphasizes grievances.” First associated mainly with liberal and progressive causes, it has long been adopted by everyone from conservatives and libertarians opposed to taxes to fundamentalist evangelicals protecting family values. So we now have it: politics as a televised national shouting match, with intractable gridlock on issues of pressing national concern. And Skerry doubts that even so skilled a politician as Obama can change or even escape this political reality. “I welcome the rhetoric,” Skerry says, “but I don’t think he is the transformational leader everyone thinks he is.”

Others agree. Among them is author Shelby Steele, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and controversial conservative critic of race-based politics in contemporary America. In his new book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win, Steele argues that entrapment in black identity and identity politics will ultimately hold Obama back. Steele claims that Obama chose “blackness” partly out of a desire to connect with an absent father he barely knew. While it is debatable that any racial identity is freely chosen in America, Obama himself has written eloquently of his efforts to forge connections with black America, whether through his work as a community organizer in South Side Chicago or through his membership in a strongly Afrocentric church.

More controversially, though, Steele insists that Obama’s cultivation of “blackness” led him to deny, or at least downplay, the values by which his white mother raised him, including a strong work ethic, a code of personal responsibility, and a traditional liberal emphasis on universalism over the particularities of race. “He goes,” Steele says, “to a black nationalist church that his mother would not be comfortable in.”

Race bargaining. Steele concedes that Obama uses his blackness more subtly than an earlier generation of black leaders and that this milder “bargaining” style is the heart of his appeal, particularly among white liberals seeking expiation from their own sense of collective historical guilt. But even this form of race bargaining wil ultimately limit Obama’s appeal, Steele contends, because it will not allow him to be honest enough about those values (conservative ones, in Steele’s reckoning) that have enabled him to succeed in his own life. “He can articulate the conservative value system very well,” says Steele, “but he still looks to government to do everything.”

Everything? The extremity of this and other conclusions not only undercuts Steele’s more nuanced points but also denies what others see as Obama’s success in forging links of shared interest among groups as seemingly diverse as urban blacks in Atlanta and rural whites in Maine. But it is not just conservatives who charge that even a subtle form of identity politics will ultimately weaken Obama’s message and appeal, particularly among other minority groups such as Hispanics. Juan Rangel, CEO of United Neighborhood Organization in Chicago, knew Obama as an organizer and as a state legislator and says that he admires much about the candidate. “More than most other African-American leaders, he is looking for ways to buck the old style of black politics,” Rangel says, “But he’s no Bill Cosby in insisting on personal responsibility.”

A Clinton supporter himself, Rangel questions how far Obama will be able to move beyond “a black activist mentality” that he believes emphasizes victimization. “It’s hard for someone coming out of that tradition to break out of it without losing their core constituency,” says Rangel. “He’s trying to walk the line of not offending the old leadership.”

But, in truth, how else could an African-American Democratic politician walk? Roger Wilkins, a professor of history at George Mason and both a participant in and observer of the civil rights movement, says that Obama has a political agenda that goes far beyond, but still includes, the issues of discrimination and poverty as matters that must be addressed to achieve a better America. But as Wilkins puts it, “He is not a civil rights era guy, and he can’t pretend to be one. Nobody wants someone whose mind is stuck in and formed by events of four decades ago. This man is looking at America whole.”

American idol. Yet the carefully calibrated distance that Obama has maintained from Jackson and other civil rights era leaders continues to provoke comment. Some who know him say that Jackson, for one, has been quietly hurt by that distance, even while understanding the need for it.

Obama’s critics from the left even charge that he and other members of a younger generation of black politicians–including Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Newark Mayor Cory Booker–have gone too far in distancing themselves not only from the older leaders but also from the issue-driven movement-style politics of the civil rights era.

“Obama’s politics is corporate driven,” says author-activist Kevin Gray, who headed Jackson’s South Carolina campaign in 1988. “It’s advertising. It’s image related. It hits on broad themes and can’t come down on any issues unless there’s a broad consensus.” Sounding at times a little like Steele, Gray says that he finds talk about an “Obama movement” both revealing and disturbingly empty. “It is dangerous to see a man as a movement,” says Gray, “even if he is identified with change in some big way. We ought to be clear what we mean about these things, or we just end up with the American Idol president.” In light of what the civil rights movement of the 1960s achieved in the areas of law and social policy, why, Gray asks, shouldn’t the new black leaders–whom he calls “smoothy-doothies”–be pressing for equally bold changes?

But many of the old movement people acknowledge that times and challenges have changed. “It’s a necessary choice he’s made,” says Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a professor of history at the University of Virginia and American University. “You can’t hope to be a governor r president unless you appeal to a broad swath of people.” Still, Bond doesn’t accept that Obama has abandoned the ideals of the movement, even if he operates in ways that are different from those of the old movement leaders. “Listen to what he says; read what he writes,” Bond says. “He’s combining two [political] styles and making them into one.”

Road to White house: 08

Road to the White House

<!–CNN TOTAL DELEGATE ESTIMATE*–>

TOTAL DELEGATES
 
1,327

Obama

1,255

Clinton

971

McCain

233

Huckabee

1,166

Pledged:

1,021

Pledged:

921

Pledged:

230

Pledged:

161

Superdels:

234

Superdels:

50

Unpl. RNC:

3

Unpl. RNC:

Needed to Win: 2,025
Needed to Win: 1,191

Oscars

FACTFILE  
 
  • An Oscar is 13 ½ inches tall.
  •  
     
  • The red carpet is about 33 feet wide and 500 feet long.
  •  
     
  • The first Academy Awards were held on May 16, 1929, when movies had just begun to talk.
  •  
     
  • There have been 2,658 Oscars handed out since the first Academy Awards.
  •  
     
  • Winners are forbidden to sell their statuette without first offering them to the Academy.
  •  
     
  • Only three movies have so far received record 11 Oscars – Ben Hur (1959), Titanic (1997) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003).
  •  
     
  • There were 306 films eligible for nominations this year.
  •  
     
  • Kazakhstan is a first-time nominee in the foreign film division with “Mongol.”
  •  
     
  • A total of 63 countries submitted entries for the foreign language category.
  •  
     
  • More than 100 photographers will be on the red carpet
  • Oracle Life

    Q. What if your Dad loses his car keys?
    A. ‘Parent keys not found!’

    Q. What if your old girl friend spots you with your new one?
    A. ‘Duplicate value on index!’

    Q. What if the golf ball doesn’t get into the hole at all?
    A. ‘Value larger than specified precision!’

    Q. What if you try to have fun with somebody else’s girlfriend and get kicked out?
    A. ‘Insufficient privileges on the specified object!’

    Q. What if you don’t get any response from the girl next door?
    A. ‘No data found!’ or ‘ Query caused no rows retrieved !’

    Q. What if you get response from the girl next door and her Mom too?
    A. ‘SELECT INTO returns too many rows!’

    Q. What if you dial a wrong number?
    A. ‘Invalid number’ or ‘ Object doesn’t exist!’

    Q. What if you try to beat your own trumpet?
    A. ‘Object is found mutating!’

    Q. What if you are too late to office and the boss catches you?
    A. ‘Discrete transaction failed!’

    Q. What if you see ‘theatre full’ when you go to a movie?
    A. ‘Maximum number of users exceeded!’

    Q. What if you don’t get table in the lunch room?
    A. ‘System out of tablespace!’