Book v/s movie

Every time a movie based on a book is released, I go in for the book first followed by movie, unless of course it has a fantasy story. Then in that case, the order is reversed. However, today I have a little fray going on in my head because of the movie Slumdog Millionaire based on the book Q & A by Arun Swarup. Slumdog Millionaire has made it to the headlines of today's newspaper, by getting 10 nominations at the Oscars, which supports the review I'd gotten from my friends. The thing which goes against the book is that it's by an Indian author, and frankly speaking, I have neither read not heard of an exceptional book written by an Indian author. I wonder what I should do first, read the book, or watch the movie. Speaking of movies based on books, the other day I watched this movie called Into the wild (I know, it's an old movie but I just watched it... big deal!), which was a strange movie. Strange I say, cause it wasn't that I liked the movie, but I didn't dislike it either, still if asked, I'd say it is a must-see kind of a movie. Though I wish I'd know the movie was based on a book, which was in fact inspired by a true story, then I'd have read the book first. I guess this true story bit was the one that makes it a must-watch. It's also got an awesome soundtrack (which I'm listening to right now) which is the debut solo album of Eddie Vedder, the Pearl Jam guy. Speaking of music, Mettalica's Death Magnetic is driving me crazy. I can neither get the songs out of my head, nor stop listening to them. I inevitably end up purging my playlist of all other songs. Woooha... I'm getting late... Gotta go.

Redefining the laws of physics.

I am sick and tired of "action movies" which have totally unrealistic action scenes. Most such movies have guns being fired in them. I am sure you have heard of the term recoil. A recoil is a backward impulse exerted by a gun, whenever it is fired. A recoil is based on one of the most fundamental laws of physics known as Newton's third law of motion, the simplified versions of which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So when a bullet goes forward, the gun goes backwards, the extent of which is defined by the second law of motion (the one about the conservation of momentum). Most Hollywood movies do have recoiling guns but I am yet to see a hindi movie which incorporates the idea of a recoil. One of the best examples of recoil would be the scene from Men In Black where Will Smith fires his miniature gun, only to be thrown back by 10 feet or so. But that was fiction, and hence the amplified recoil. And then there is the other part when the gun is fired, the reaction of the person who was shot at. No I am not talking about the pain and stuff, which i am sure is nothing more than a sting initially because of the shock and adrenaline, I am talking about how much the person/object being shot at is thrown back. This is one thing that sometimes even the big shots in Hollywood mess up, while some Indian directors may get it right too. If a gun is fired and it causes a recoil which only causes the person shooting the gun to jerk his wrist, how come the "bad guys" go airborne??? There is only one thing that could initiate such a reaction, the bullet itself needs to have some sort of jet propulsion system, like say may be some propulsion unit activated right after the bullet leaves the muzzle of the gun <*rolling over with laughter*> that gives it the extra momentum. Jokes apart, guns are dangerous and so is their recoil. The recoil of an assault rifle could even dislocate your shoulder if the gun isn't properly held. But still people like Bruce Willis are gonna keep firing their rifles one handed, 'cause action heroes will be action heroes and they ain't gonna let a tinsy-winsy recoil hamper their image.

A drought for a couple of years, and then there were tears.

I was watching Roman Polanski’s The Pianist the other day when I first noticed it. I though I must have be mistaken and dismissed the thought. But then while watching Schindler's list, it happened again, and this time it was worse than before. It was awful. I had tears in my eyes, tears trickled down my cheeks. After a dry spell of two years, my eyes were wet again. Hats off to Steven Spielberg, who managed to trigger off such a reaction, with the help of a mere movie. My English teacher once told us that it wasn’t such a big thing to cry. She in fact encouraged crying (in the non-sadistic sense of course). According to her, crying, of all the other emotions, helped in the healing of the soul (whatever that means). Although I never tried suppressing my emotions (except anger sometimes), the last time I shed a tear was ages ago (One year, ten months to be precise). It was over a piece of paper, commonly known as a mark-sheet. Having belonged to an upper-middle intelligence-class, I had never before seen such a pathetic set of grades, and I started doubting myself. That was the last time I cried. I buried my head into my blanket, and sobbed till I went to sleep. The incident changed me a lot, for the better or worse, only time shall tell. A lot has happened ever since, but nothing had till now compelled me to shed a tear, until now. What is it about human suffering, that causes saline water to trickle out of my eyes??? Does the fact that all these were true stories, amplify the effect it has in our minds??? Even Freedom Writers made the corners of my eyes moist. I, for now, have stopped watching true and/or sad stories, n now stick to light hearted comedy movies only.