Rock On!

There is something about U2 that I just love and also believe that most other do. I mean there are very few people who like music and do not like U2.

They have been one of my favourite bands and their songs amongst my top 10 always. With  or without you, City of blinding lights, Sometimes you can’t make it alone, Elevation, Mothers of the disappeared, and so on and so forth. The latest addition to the list of U2 songs I adore is “Walk On“.

And love is not the easy thing
The only baggage that you can bring
Love is not the easy thing
The only baggage you can bring
Is all that you can’t leave behind…


I was watching MTV yesterday (after ages) and happened to watch a nonsensical 5 minute long promo. The first thing to strike me was the title of the movie “Aap Kaa Surroor – The Moviee – The Real Luv Story” (at this point I was trying hard not to fall off my seat, laughing as hard as I was).

Indian movies and soap operas have for long murdered Hindi and English going overboard in the usage of extra alphabets in their titles and names to conform to some numerology shit!! The first one I remember is Suniel Shetty. I am pretty hazy however, when it comes to remembering what effect it had on his career or acting skills. Since then a huge number of actors have tried changing their names to varying degrees of success. KEkta Kapoor brought the practice to the silver screen and set another height by naming a Star TV soap as “Kkusum”.

But this is breaking ground stuff!! I mean Moviee. The lengths they would go to ensure the sucess of a movie, other than ensuring a decent cast. Did I happen to mention that the lead actor here is none other than Himesh Reshammaiya and the entire promo is shot like a pop video rather than a movie!!

Next thought in my mind was, what will happen if they need a comic scene? Himesh baba, as far as I know, can barely manage a smile, let alone a laugh (I think he should start using Close Up, the ad jingle matches his voice). Also, I was thinking of a probable climax scene. Himesh slowly (the camera zooms in from different directions at this moment) lifting up his cap and revealing “What lies beneath“.

A must read here. An article on IndiaGlitz. Sample the lines below:

The rock star is back.

One of the best shots of the promo come a few seconds later as freeze frames of traffic moving down the road are shown with Reshammiya looking at it from the top in his usual pensive mood.


One of the best shot sequences for a video arrives when he walks down the stairs of a monumental building that appears to be a historic site or an educational institute from the West.


This post is not a rant against the Himesh baba. This post is not a rant against his pathetic voice. This post is not a rant against his cap, pensive look or the now overgrown beard. This post is not a rant against a mindless 5 minute long promo for his upcoming debut movie. This post is not a rant against him being the protagonist in what is being touted as the most expensive Hindi movie ever made.

Hair-Ball-ing controversy!!

Darrell Hair seems to beat the current bad boy cricket (Sohaib Akhtar) when it comes to being the centre of a cricketing controversy. The apparently no nonsense umpire has been removed from the elite panel of umpires and will no longer be officiating in International matches.

While the media from Down Under and Britain are crying foul and terming it as strong arm tactics of the Asian bloc, Mr. Hair is not stranger to courting controversy. Lets take a look at his career which has never remained free from the limelight.

1992. Adelaide Test. India vs Australia. In this match eight Indians fell victim to LBW decisions but only two of their appeals were upheld. Australia won by a narrow margin of 38 runs. Wisden felt that the entire affair was “marred … by controversy over lbw decisions – eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected”.

1994. Adelaide Test. South Africa vs Australia. Peter Kirsten had an animated talk with Mr. Hair after a series of Proteans were declared out LBW. Kirsten was promptly declared out LBW in the next innings, and South Africa lost the game. Many felt that the decision was flimsy at the best.

1995. Melbourne Test. Sri Lanka vs Australia. Mr. Hair infamously no-balled Murali (from the bowlers end) for chucking. Now though the Aussies agree that Mr. Hair is very fair in all his dealings, I am ready to bet that such instances are not very common in the cricketing arena where the leg umpire is generally the one to declare a ball as being “thrown”. Lot of water has flown under the bridge since then. ICC has cleared Murali of all charges. Mr. Hair was charged (note, not penalised) for bringing the game into disrepute by calling Murali’s action “diabolical” in his autobiography.

2005. Faisalabad Test. Pakistan vs England. Mr. Hair declares Inzamam run out for leaving his crease while taking evasive action. Cricketing gurus feel it is contradictory to cricketing laws that stipulate that batsman cannot be run out if he leaves his ground due to evasive action. [Side note: I was happy as the decision against Tendulkar at Eden Garden is avenged.]

2006. Oval Test. Pakistan vs England. Mr. Hair, in consultation with Mr. Doctrove, declare the ball as being tampered with penalise Pakistan 5 runs and change the ball. Now, we all now that Pakistan has long faced such charges and are often in trouble for tampering with the ball and getting “some” reverse swing. Anyways, Pakistan decide that they had done nothing wrong and decide to not take the field as a mark of protest. Mr. Hair declares the match as forfieted and awards it to England. An enquiry committee then finds the ball being not tampered with and clear Pakistan of ball tampering charges but penalise them for bringing the game into disrepute. This was done after hearing the views of former cricketer Geoff Boycott and TV analyst Simon Hughes.

On the receiving end of Mr. Hair’s decisions have been India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and South Africa while on the other end stand Australia and England. Now, only if someone could explain me why the so called Asian bloc (supported by South Africa, West Indies and Zimbabwe) was for, while Australia and England (supported by New Zealand) are against, the suspension of Mr. Hair?