The Price of Responsibility...

The trade deadline passed and the players moved.. now what?? well.. montreal certainly pulled a surprise by giving away arguably their #1 goaltender for practically nothing. Sure they could have potentially gotten more for huet than a menial second round draft pick, but then again there's the argument of whether there's a market for goaltenders in the NHL these days. Unless ur name is Roberto Luongo, JS Giguere, Martin Brodeur or Henrik Lundqvist, ur pretty much expendable in the NHL While teams like dallas, pittsburgh, and san jose strengthened their team, the habs and Bob Gainey seem to have done the reverse.

The flipside of this move though, is the payoff that waits around the corner. Sure, now all the hopes of a montreal stanley cup falls on the shoulders of a 20 year with a 21 year old backup. But history seems to favour the habs on this one. The last 2 times a rookie goaltender was thrust with this kind of responsibility, they brought home the stanley cup to la belle provence in 1971 and 1986, under dryden and roy respectively. I'm not saying that Carey Price is anywhere near the calibre of the 2 hall of famers mentioned above, but right now all we can do is hope that this young man can handle the pressures that come with the job and take us through. If he doesn't, we always have that draft pick we got.. which is 1 draft pick more than what we would have gotten for huet at the end of the season.

As a side note, what will happen if Montreal faces the Penguins in the first round?? they seem to be a powerhouse before the acquisition of Hossa. The two teams seem to be pretty evenly posed with them splitting the season series 2-2 but does the addition of hossa to the lineup really threaten to put them Pens over the top? I'm too scared to answer this question myself. my heart tells me that i shouldn't turn my back on my habs.. but the reality is that the powerplay lineup of malkin, crosby, hossa, malone is quite possibly the best line since alfredsson, spezza, heatley and redden. It's scary enough to think of one league leader in a line.. imagine having to block shots coming from 3.. I guess the bottom line is..Can Price Handle It? Is the loss of Huet too big a price for Price?? Only time will tell.

Moving on.. The Trade Situation..

Now that the oscars are done, I can move on to other topics.. so i figured i'd focus on the NHL trade deadline which is tomorrow.. so here I am waiting with bated breath on what's going to happen to mes habitants.. are they gonna make that trade for the impact player we've been told time and time again.

The Mats Sundin saga ended quite abruptly with him saying that he wants to stay in toronto. Although his intentions are noble, one has to wonder the long term repercussions of his decision.. Don't get me wrong.. I personally think that he is a great individual for staying loyal to the team especially when the team has treated him like shit over and over again. A simple question would be, y stay when the management doesn't want u to stay? will they really show you any respect? Knowing toronto management over the last 4 decades, i'm willing to bet my money that Sundin will be treated the same as all his predecessors. Doug Gilmour, Dave Keon, Wendel Clark, Daryl Sittler and many many more.

I read an article on the toronto star earlier today titled "Classless Leafs don't deserve Mats". This coming from toronto star columnist Rosie DiManno, a long-time supporter and die hard fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

"There is a recurring theme here in the melodramas of Maple Leaf Land. This is an organization without class and without conscience. Was a time that could be attributed to the deranged persona of Harold Ballard, a bully and misanthrope who abused staff, shamed players and held fans in contempt. But at least there was a face to put to the bungle and a desk where the buck stopped.

If you were to call the Leafs' front office today and ask to speak with the person in charge, who in the world might that be? It's a board of directors accountable to no one except shareholders and immune from scandal.

A few years back, the Leafs announced things were going to be done different. Alumni were welcomed back, the diaspora of beloved ex-Leafs embraced, vows of integrity expressed. In practice, little has changed. It remains a franchise without a soul, for all its iconic stature, thoughtless and disloyal.

Can you imagine the Detroit Red Wings treating Steve Yzerman, when in the eclipse of his career, as the Leafs are treating Sundin, even as respectful as Fletcher has attempted to be? Or the Montreal Canadiens similarly rushing Bob Gainey - his sweater retired on Saturday - out the door, with a slam-bang-thank-you capitaine?

The public has grown weary of sports idols who swap loyalties for the green, and rosier environments. Would serve the Leafs right if, denied a deal for Sundin at the deadline, he refuses to re-sign here now. But he won't. The guy's only crime is that he's not a mercenary, that he's true.

All else is false."

This is not to show my hatred for the TML organization but rather what i've been re-iterating for years about the lack of commitment and the lack of soul in the team. The time has finally come for the media and the fans to finally take a stance against the organization, to boycott the games, and to stop buying into the management's loose promises. But this has been an all too familiar a sight and is very likely to disappear into the background like all the previous years and the leaf organization, until a radical change is made, is doomed to failure.

Expectations Shattered...

So the verdict came out.. and i guess it was a mixed package.. I was very happy that Juno won the best original screenplay but I am very disappointed with the selection of no country for old men as the best picture. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly a well directed movie and the character of anton chighur was played with such perfection that Javier Bardem definitely deserved the oscar for best supporting actor. I could even say that the coen brothers deserved the best director award for No Country for Old Men but it did not deserve the honour of best picture because it did not stand for anything. It was a movie about a psychopath, all is well. But the movie does not dwell into the psychopathic mind, nor does it portray what drives a man to insanity. In all honesty, this was a movie about a man who goes around killing people with no reason at all. (forget valid reason).. In my mind, if this movie deserved an oscar for best picture, so did I know what u did last summer.

The story also lacked any moral or ethical dilemmas that, when compared to previous best picture winners of the last decade, does not compare even remotely. Look at the likes of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Crash, The Departed, even Titanic. All these movies offered a story. What No Country offered was gore, violence and utter disregard for human life with absolutely no basis for the cause of violence. In comparison, the other nominees of the year were Atonement, Juno, There will be blood and Michael Clayton. I have yet to see There will be blood, but my gut instinct tells me that it deserved the best picture more than No country. Atonement certainly had a more powerful story that will withstand the test of time. That will move the audience and make them think. No country for old men will certainly have its audience grip their seats but at the end of it.. it is simply a movie.. Atonement, and its predecessors, left behind more than a simple feeling of fright. They left behind a lesson... Hopefully future academy awards will take notice and act upon the fact that Best Picture goes beyond one category.

Atonement - MY NOMINATION...

I just finished watching atonement and I will come right out and say it. This is the movie that is going to win. I would be very surprised if it didn't. Of the 5 movies nominated, the only one I have yet to see is "There will be blood" and I cannot imagine it to be better than what I just witnessed. Atonement not only appealed to me from a general perspective but also in a very close and personal manner. If there is one movie this year which combined drama, thrill, twists and emotion, this is the one. For those of you that know me well, you know the importance I place on truth and the importance I place on not using abusive language. This movie, better than any i've seen before, translated my fears into a worst case scenario and portrays them on screen in a smart and touching way.

Atonement is a story about lies, misconceptions and the repercussions of "white" lies. The story paces back and forth for a period of 5 years around the lives of Briony Tallis (Saorise Ronan, Romola Garai, Vanessa Regrave), Cecilia "cee" Tallis (Kiera Knigthley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) The story starts with a young Briony, at a tender age of 13, aspiring to be a novelist/playwright. Briony witnesses her sister Cee making love to a poorer Robbie Turner, but incorrectly assumes that she was being molested based on her previous interactions with Robbie. In fact, Robbie and Cee earlier confessed their love for one another. Briony then further makes a wrong judgement and accuses robbie of a crime he did not commit, which in effect sends him to prison, and later to war. Move forwards four years into the future and you have an older Briony who understands the seriousness of her actions as a 13 year old. She desperately seeks for the forgiveness of her older sister and Robbie. I'll leave this story as vague as I can for this is one that just has to be experienced. It cannot be summarized in a plot synopsis.

The movie is directed exceptionally well with wonderful imagery and careful precision. The young Briony pulls off a performance to be reckoned with. Perhaps I am biased towards the movie for personal reasons, but all things aside, this is one movie you wouldn't want to miss. I am in somewhat of a hurry today and do not have time to give a full out review for this movie. But i will certainly get back to it soon. Here's the one quote that hit me..

(Right after Briony reads a letter that Robbie wrote expressing his desire to kiss Cee's "C*NT")
Briony Tallis, aged 13: Lola, can I tell you something? Something really terrible?
Lola Quincey: Yes please.
Briony Tallis, aged 13: What's the worst word you can possibly imagine?

In the meantine, I urge all of you to get out there and watch this one. My rating for this movie 4.5 out of 5...

No Country For Old Men - FREAKY!!!

I'll try to keep this one short considering i'm in somewhat of a hurry today. No Country For Old Men is quite likely the most heartracing story i've seen in quite some time. If there was a handbook for a way a thriller should be made, this movie sure followed it to the core. Save the last 20 minutes, this movie moves at a pace of a speeding bullet.. (pardon the superman analogy) The ending was rather abrupt and felt inconclusive but i'm assuming that this was done intentionally to let the viewer leave with an open mind.

The story is quite simple at its core. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds a bag with 2 million dollars around a number of dead mexican guys who were trying to smuggle drugs across the mexico-texas border. He walks away with the 2 million without thinking too much into it but is soon tracked down by a killer for hire named Anton Chighur (Javier Bardem) Chighur is a ruthless psychopath who does not stop at any expense. His goal is quite simply to find the 2 million dollars and kill anyone that comes in his way. Soon we're off to the races, as Chighur chases Moss through the deserts of texas stopping at different motels. Moss manages to stay just one step ahead of Chighur until of course the defining moment. Behind both these men is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). Ed Tom is determined to save Moss from the hands of Chighur. Who lives and who dies is the crux of this story.

The performance by Bardem as the psychopathic Chighur is definitely oscar-worthy. A wonderful personification of pure evil. A friend of mine even went as far as to say that his role in the movie is comparable to the infamous hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. Every moment leading up to the moss-chighur encounter has ur heart racing. I must be honest though, I really didn't see much point to the movie as a whole. The ending to the movie was rather abrupt and sudden that it felt very unnatural. This movie is definitely worth a watch but not for the faint hearted. My warning to u... be prepared for gore and utterly gruesome imagery. My final verdict.. i'm still not convinced that this was the best movie of the year last year.. let's see if my mind changes tomorrow, I'm watching "there will be blood" starring daniel day lewis. See you all then.

Michael Clayton - Still not convinced

So continuing on with my oscar review.. Michael Clayton was the movie of the night starring George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. After first look at this movie, i can confidently say that this is going to be the one movie that does not win the oscar for best picture of the year. It's a very interesting crime drama/thriller but it is definitely not oscar material. With George Clooney at the helm, it definitely is a lot of eye candy for the women but what i saw in this movie was a legal drama that had a slight tinge of facing up to moral and ethical issues.

Without much further ado, here's a brief synopsis of the story. Since this story is titled a suspense thriller, i'll try my best not to ruin it for any of you. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a lawyer with above ordinary credentials is a "fixer" for a high profile manhattan law firm. His job is to fix any mistakes made by any of his clients. For example, he clears the name for a client who just commited a hit and run, or stop the presses from printing any big stories that their clients don't want out. The firm's big account is with an agro-chemical company called UNorth, whose account is handled by clayton's good friend Arthur. (Tom Wilkinson)

The movie starts with Arthur losing his mind, stripping and attacking his plaintiff in the middle of a hearing. Clayton meets Arthur and is told that there's more to the UNorth case than meets the eye. Clayton tries to convince Arthur that he has gone way over his head and tries to calm him down. UNorth's in-house counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), meanwhile has her men follow arthur and finds out that Arthur knows some UNorth confidential information, has him killed and makes it look like a suicide. Clayton doesn't believe that the man he spoke to 12 hours ago, ready to take on the world, is now dead. He breaks into Arthur's sealed house and finds the secret that UNorth doesn't want him to know and is now the target for Karen Crowder's man.

And the chase begins...

This is definitely a weak nomination for the best movie category. I wouldn't say that this movie is boring and unbearable to watch, but for a suspense thriller, this movie lacks suspense and it lacks thrill. The dialogues are not very strong, and the picturization isn't that great. The characters are very poorly developed. For example, we find that clayton is divorced but remains close to his son, yet we do not see any character building between clayton and his family. My rating.. 2.5 out of 5.. I guess i'm a little harsh because i had high expectations for this movie. I will come back tomorrow with the highly anticipated "No Country for Old Men"

As always, all comments welcome..

Juno - last year's best movie?? Can't say for sure

Continuing with my analysis of oscar winners, i figured that with the academy awards in 3 days.. y not review this year's top nominees for Best Picture. I started by watching Juno last night starring ellen page, michael cera, jennifer garner and the ever so lovable Allison Janney (CJ for you west wing lovers) Juno was said to be the feel good movie of the year. One that made people smile with the underlying comedy even though the story revolves around a very controversial topic.

Juno (ellen page) is a 16 year old girl who ends up getting pregnant bearing the child of fellow 16 year old bleeker (michael cera).. After a revelation at the abortion clinic, juno decides that she doesn't want to abort the baby because it has fingernails.. :P

Juno MacGuff: ...and the receptionist tried to get me to take these condoms that looked like grape suckers and was just babbling away about her freaking boyfriends pie balls! Oh an Su-Chin was there and she was like, "Hi babies have fingernails." FINGERNAILS!
Leah: Oh, gruesome. I wonder if the baby's claws could scratch your vag on the way out?

Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption to a couple she finds in the pennysaver ad, vanessa and mark loring played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. Mark is a musician who is kept on a tight leash while Vanessa is craving to be a mother more than anything in the world. The movie develops vanessa's character as a bossy wife, while portraying mark as the jovial, funloving guy but both of them as good hearted people until of course the climax. The story revolves around what happens after from the time that juno agrees to give the baby up to the couple till the time of birth.

The movie touches on a number of relationships effortlessly. Juno and Bleeker being the obvious one. Mark and Vanessa. Juno and Bren (Allison Janney, Juno's stepmother), Juno and Mac (J K Simmons, Juno's father). The movie's strength is definitely in the dialogues. Ellen Page does a brilliant job of playing a typical teenager, right down to the delivery of the dialogue and her mannerisms. The movie was certainly great.. but i don't know if i'd say it's worthy of an oscar best picture. I'll need to look at the other nominees to decide. Ellen page certainly is a contender for the best actress category and rightfully so. The movie's strength is also to be able to make the story very lighthearted despite the serious topic. The understanding parents who want what's best for their daughter. Allison Janney was excellent as a loving stepmother, contrary to the norm in movies. One of the interesting aspects i found was the background score for the movie was actually a series of vocal songs, somewhat like recitals, depicting the story. I found it to be a very unique and charming delivery and added the little extra touch to Juno that made it great.

So that's my 2 cents on Juno. I'll keep updating over the next 3 days with the other nominees. I'm planning to watch George Clooney in Michael Clayton tonight.. and hopefully before the actual oscars be able to come to a conclusion on the best movie... I'm adding a couple of the quotes from Juno that i found most interesting.

Vanessa Loring: You think you're really going to do this?
Juno MacGuff: Yea, if I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would. But I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea monkey right now and we should let it get a little cuter.
Vanessa Loring: That's great.
Mark Loring: Keep it in the oven.

[at Juno’s ultrasound]
Leah: Dude that thing looks freaky.
Juno MacGuff: I am a sacred vessel; all you got in your stomach is taco bell.

Juno MacGuff: I'm losing my faith in humanity.
Mac MacGuff: Think you can narrow it down for me?
Juno MacGuff: I guess I wonder sometimes if people ever stay together for good.
Mac MacGuff: You mean like couples?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah, like people in love.
Mac MacGuff: Are you having boy troubles? I gotta be honest; I don't much approve of dating in your condition, 'cause well... that's kind of messed up.
Juno MacGuff: Dad, no!
Mac MacGuff: Well, it's kind of skanky. Isn't that what you girls call it? Skanky? Skeevy?
Juno MacGuff: Please stop now.
Mac MacGuff: [persisting] Tore up from the floor up?
Juno MacGuff: Dad, it's not about that. I just need to know if it's possible for two people to stay happy together forever, or at least for a few years.
Mac MacGuff: It's not easy, that's for sure. Now, I may not have the best track record in the world, but I have been with your stepmother for 10 years now and I'm proud to say that we're very happy.
[Juno nods]
Mac MacGuff: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.

When Juno decides to tell her parents..

Leah: Dude, I think it's best to just tell 'em.
Juno MacGuff: I'm Pregnant.
Bren: Oh, God.
Juno MacGuff: But, uh ah, I'm going to give it up for adoption and I already found the perfect couple, they're going to pay for the medical expenses and everything. And and what ah 30 or odd weeks we can just pretend that this never happened.
Mac MacGuff: You're pregnant?
Juno MacGuff: I'm sorry. I'm sorry... And if it is any consolation I have heartburn that is radiating in my knee caps and I haven't taken a dump since like Wednesday... morning.
Bren: I didn't even know that you were sexually active.
Juno MacGuff: I, uh...
Mac MacGuff: Who is the kid?
Juno MacGuff: The-the baby? I don't really know much about it other than, I mean, it has fingernails, allegedly.
Bren: Nails, really?
Juno MacGuff: Yeah!
Mac MacGuff: No, I know I mean who's the father, Juno?
Juno MacGuff: Umm... It's Paulie Bleeker.
Mac MacGuff: Paulie Bleeker?
Juno MacGuff: What?
Mac MacGuff: I didn't think he had it in him.
Leah: I know, right?

Oscar Winners - Rain Man

I guess continuing in the trend of my first post, i figured i'd give my 2 cents on another classic movie that somehow eluded me all these years. I'm in the process of watching Rain Man with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman and I must say i'm very simply blown away by Dustin Hoffman's acting. Looking back, I can't help but wonder, where is the Tom Cruise that did movies of this high quality. His recent flicks, in my opinion, cannot compare to the Tom Cruise of Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, Top Gun and A Few Good Men.

Going back to Rain Man, for those of you that haven't yet seen it, it's a simple story of the bonding of two brothers, one of whom happens to be an autistic savant. Charlie (Tom Cruise) finds out of his estranged father's death and further realizes that his father left 3 million dollars to a benefactor Raymond, (Dustin Hoffman) Charlie's autistic brother who he doesn't know exists. Eager to get his fair share of his father's money, Charlie kidnaps Ray and holds him hostage until the trustees give him his share of the 3 million dollars. What happens after truly defines the movie as Charlie begins to bond with Ray despite his numerous quirkiness.

The movie doesn't lack its comical moments either. Although there were no scenes that made me roll on the floor laughing, the moments of comedy definitely brought a chuckle to my lips. If i had to just pick one scene to explain to you the underlying comedy, it would be the conversation below between Ray and Charlie.

Raymond: Of course I don't have my underwear. I'm definitely not wearing my underwear. Charlie: I gave you a fresh pair of mine to wear. Where are they?
Raymond: They're in the pocket of my jacket. Here.
Charlie: I don't want them back.
Raymond: These are not boxer shorts. Mine are boxer shorts. These are Hanes 32.
Charlie: Underwear is underwear, Ray.
Raymond: My boxer shorts have my name and it says Raymond.
Charlie: All right, when we pass the store, we'll pick you up a pair of boxer shorts.
Raymond: I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.
Charlie: We're not going back to Cincinnati, Ray, so don't even start with that.
Raymond: Gotta get my boxer shorts at K-Mart, 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti.
Charlie: [Pulls over, gets out of the car and yells] WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY UNDERWEAR? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? UNDERWEAR IS UNDERWEAR! IT IS UNDERWEAR WHEREVER YOU BUY IT! IN CINCINNATI OR WHEREVER!
Raymond: K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti
Charlie: You know what I think, Ray? I think this autism is a bunch of shit! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!
Raymond: Boxer shorts. K-Mart! 400 Oak Street, Cincinatti

A blog entry doesn't do this movie justice. Although it does have its shortcomings. Very slow moving at times, the movie definitely is oscar worthy solely on dustin hoffman's performance. I wuda liked to see some more intriguing dialogues from Ray as was later done in forrest gump by Tom Hanks. Although it was necessary to maintain his character as an autistic adult, a few more enthralling dialogues couldn't have hurt. I would love to hear all of your opinions on the movie if you have seen it.

My First Post

I've been meaning to do this for a very long time. I guess finally being in a place by myself with nothing to do is enough incentive to start blogging. This place is gonna have me ranting about everything from the latest and greatest technologies that intrigue me, a modest review of the newest AR Rahman albums (occasionally some translations if I manage to get around to it), and the most random topics that you would find on the web. I started thinking what my first post should be on, and considering I just finished watching Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, and I came across some intriguing questions relating to the man himself. A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article that questioned Gandhi's last words. The common belief including my own till about 2 weeks ago was Gandhi's last words were "He Ram". Other sources indicated that Gandhi in fact said "Ram Ram" and not "He Ram". So you ask, why does this matter? "Ram Ram" and "He Ram" really don't make much of a difference. What the article goes on to state is that a few months before his death, Gandhi went on to say "Even if I am killed, I will not give up, repeating the names of Ram and Rahim, which mean to me the same God. With these names on my lips, I will die cheerfully." I suppose you can now see where I'm going with this. If Gandhi did in fact say "Ram Rahim" and not "Ram Ram", it could go a long way in promoting Hindu-Muslim co-operation in India and Pakistan. Gandhi, who to a large extent, is seen as the man who stood by hindu ideals and was an ardent believer of the bhagavad gita and its teachings has "He Ram" written in his tombstone. The man who millions follow may even be an atheist, based on a conversation published between Gandhi and Goparaju Ramachandra Rao, a devout Gandhi follower and a self-proclaimed atheist. Albeit, these claims were made by Rao in his book, one can never know if Gandhi actually claimed to be a "super-atheist" as mentioned in the book. All things aside, I guess the point of this entry is just to explore the far reaching effects of one statement, that may have potentially been misheard. All comments welcome.