Grayscale

Last time there was this much excitement about a tablet, there were commandments written on it- WSJ

iPad has been announced and there is a general feeling of disappointment. Apple for the first time in a decade has not met or exceeded expectations.

But lets face it, with the hype around the event, anything short of a tablet which would replace netbooks,laptops,desktops,cell phones,ebook readers,music players,portable media players, digital photo frames, gaming consoles and coffee makers would have been classified as a letdown. Apple lost out to its own hype but then the launch of a its “latest creation” was seriously underwhelming.

Firstly, iPad? Seriously? Slate was taken up by HP and hence, iSlate was out. Maybe Apple wanted to go for a name that was not rumored earlier which cuts out iTablet etc. iPad is not the most awe-inspiring gadget name ever but neither was iPhone. Apple is counting on the product being cool enough to make people look beyond the name.

Secondly, iPad does not bring a new UI paradigm to the table. iPod revolutionized music players with its scroll wheel navigation. iPhone changed the way people interacted with their cell phones because of the multi touch navigation. iPad is more of the same. The fact that there are “75 million users who already use this technology” might actually curtail the sales of iPad.

No multitasking means no chatting while watching the latest episode of Supernaturals. Or working on a spreadsheet while googling for relevant info. However, Apple has not confirmed or denied the absence of multitasking.

No flash support which translates to Apple not giving a damn if your cows, crops etc die out in farmville.

No front facing camera. Hence, no skype video calls on the move or real time pictures for twitter or FB.

No USB. So no mouse or external HDD support. 16 GB space is a seriously limiting factor to iPad doubling up as a video player as it would need regular sync with a laptop to transfer movies and videos.

iPad does come with iBooks, Apple’s foray into eReaders. My personal experience with reading ebooks on a LCD screen has not been that great but Apple’s LCD and multitouch UI could make it work. Kindle for iPhone app will work on iPad unless Amazon pulls it out of app store. Kindle and other ebook readers are facing a very real threat from iPad.

Is iPad a “third category of products” as Mr Jobs claimed? It will not be able to replace netbooks/laptops as primary computers or cell phones as primary tool for communication. Primary users of iPad will be customers of ebook readers as they can use iPad for other tasks when they do not feel like reading. So yes, iPad is indeed a 3rd category of devices as the evolutionary next step to Kindle/Nook.

It is a sleek device with Apple logo at the back, sexy LCD in the front and more of the multitouch UI that people cannot get enough of. Steve Jobs’ guarantee of an experience like none other is good enough to sell millions of devices in the first year itself. But for the 1st time since iPod, Apple seems to have made a mistake. The opportunity to take on Apple and win the war of the tablets is there. There is a 60 day window for competitors to make their case before the iPad becomes available.

Will I get one? Not sure. I have a policy of not buying any 1st generation gadgets to avoid headache and stress. However, I do want an ebook reader with ePub/PDF capabilities. So it is wait and watch for me as more information and hands-on experiences become available.

Sherlock Holmes is unarguably the greatest fictional detective of all times. The popularity of the character was such that his death resulted in a huge public outcry and Sir Doyle was forced to bring him back to life. Fans visited 221B Baker Street (The address of Holmes) to see the great sleuth only to be disappointed upon learning that he was a fictional character. Over the years, his aura has not diminished one bit with Holmes still being ranked as the most popular fictional detective ahead of all others.

Disclaimer: I do have a very soft corner for the series. “The Complete Collection of Sherlock Holmes” was my introduction to English literature around 15 years ago and I was hooked from day zero. Over the years, I have read Sherlock Holmes as many times as I have seen the Matrix i.e. dozens of times. I even visited 221B Baker Street in London (which is Sherlock Holmes museum now) just to get a pic of the iconic address. As an icon, Sherlock Holmes is equal to Batman for me.

Hence, Sherlock Holmes was a movie I was looking forward to in 2010. With Robert Downey Jr playing Holmes and Guy Ritchie at the helm, it was going to be legendary.

Alas, it does not go according to the plan.Neither does it fr Sherlock Holmes in the movie, something that almost never happens in the books. A very physical Sherlock Holmes (RDJ) and Dr Watson (Jude Law) are chasing after Lord Blackwood, a practitioner of dark arts with magical, supernatural powers. Also, Dr Watson is getting engaged leading to strained relations between him and Holmes as Dr Watson will be moving out once he gets married. Holmes gets unexpected assistance from Irene Adler (a delectable Rachel McAdams) who has a vested interest in stopping Lord Blackwood. Lord Blackwood wants world domination,Holmes & Watson obviously want to stop him and Irene Adler appears to want to stop him.

The movie understandably and thankfully steers clear of any original source material but takes too many liberties with the original characters of Sir Doyle. Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is cranky, overtly funny, jealous, lover boy, drunk and too prone to making mistakes.  Doyle’s Holmes is none of these.

RDJ excels as Sherlock Holmes. He is handicapped by the story and direction which require him to be quite different from the books. There are a few welcome additions like the passion he brings to the role, the raw edge but there are too many changes that go against the character of Holmes. The deductions are to the point, delivered with a casual tone and quite engrossing. The wit is there, most notably in his exchanges with Lestrade, the highlight being the dialogue:

Lestrade: In another life, you would have made an excellent criminal

Holmes: And you an excellent policeman

Jude Law makes for an acceptable Watson as the best friend of Holmes. Watson in the book is like a student in awe of the master while the movie has Watson as an active sidekick saving Holmes on more than one occasion. Holmes-Watson team in the movie actually clicks and it is fun at times to see them bicker.

Mark Strong makes a creepy, brooding, charismatic Lord Blackwood and a worthy adversary to Holmes. He pulls out many rabbits from his hat but Holmes deductive logic makes them look like child’s play at the end of it.

Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler provides a feminine edge to the movie. Irene Adler is the only woman to have beaten Holmes, the sole reason behind Holmes respect for the fairer sex and referred always by Holmes as “The Woman”. The movie reduces her to Holmes love interest with an ulterior motive to her actions in helping Holmes.

But the biggest blasphemy is reserved for Professor Moriarty.

Professor Moriarty is to Sherlock what The Joker is to Batman. Moriarty is equal to Holmes in every aspect but a darker version of Holmes.The movie depiction of Moriarty is totally, utterly against the book. Holmes describes Moriarty in “The Final Problem” as- “He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city. He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans. But his agents are numerous and splendidly organized. The agent may be caught. In that case money is found for his bail or his detence. But the central power which uses the agent is never caught — never so much as suspected.”

Moriarty in the movie is worse than Moriarty in “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”. That’s about as worse as it can get. Moriarty has less than 15 minutes of screen time but it is enough to defame the greatest adversary of Holmes.

To put it in a nutshell, an actor playing Sherlock Holmes winning Golden Globe for “Best Actor in a Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy” says it all. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would be doing cartwheels in his grave.

Sherlock Holmes does have its minor plus points. The costumes suit the era. London of late 19th century and early 20th century is magnificent with dark colors and a criminal atmosphere. The movie is gripping in parts especially when RDJ is rattling off the logic behind his deductions. The cinematography is top notch and end makes one look forward to the sequel.

Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant movie in its own right and worth watching.  Treat it as Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes and not as Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. There are many pros and the cons will be visible to Sherlock Holmes purists only. The appeal of the movie to die-hard Sherlock Holmes fans is limited because of the changes to the characters in the name of “artistic liberty”. One movie into the series and I already want a series reboot (That’s fashionable right now with Spidey & Superman getting rebooted).  Chris Nolan directing RDJ as Sherlock Holmes seems much more appealing. But then, world would be a better place if all the movies were directed by Chris Nolan.

Circa 2006, IIT Roorkee

Junior: You know Gaurav Yadav?

Me: Who the hell is Gaurav Yadav?

Junior: He who plays as Dumbledore in Titans (Titans was the Counter-Strike Clan, Dumbledore was, is and will remain Gaurav Yadav’s game handle)

Me: Ohh yeah.So say that na.Dumbledore toh I knw

Junior: ……

Resolution: I will remember names of people instead of their CS handles

Circa 2008, Bangalore

Courier Guy: I have a credit card delivery on this address for Sandeep Gupta

Me: (Thinking: hmm.I have 3 flatmates.Their names are Lancy,Mukul and Newton) No, there is no Sandeep Gupta here

Courier Guy turns around and goes

Me (having an epiphany): Newton’s parents did not name him Newton.What is his real name? Damn, he is Sandeep Gupta

Me to courier guy (After running 3 staircases): Sorry sorry, Sandeep Gupta is my flatmate

Courier guy: ……

Resolution: I will remember names of people instead of their college nicks

Circa 2009, Bangalore

I am desperate for google wave invite. Found out, a friend on twitter who has a few left. Got his number and called him at 0000 hours (Yes, I am that desperate for google wave).Some chick picks up because I dialed the wrong number

Chick: Hello

Me (at a loss): Ahem, ahem.Who is this?

Chick: Who do you want to talk to?

Me: May I speak to @daaku

Chick: …… and disconnected

Resolution: I will remember names of people instead of their twitter handles

We do not change, only the reasons behind us wanting to change do

An ancient organization is hiding a secret that has the power to change the world by allowing humans to realize their full potential.Someone wants to destroy the secret which the organization is not planning to reveal anyway.And our favourite (and only) symbologist, Robert Langdon has to work overtime to find the secret to help someone.Sounds familiar?

The Lost Symbol starts with Robert Langdon accepting a last minute invitation to deliver a lecture on behest of his mentor, Peter Solomon at the Capitol Hill. Of course, nothing is what it seems. Instead of quiet evening ending with a big applause, the symbologist gets involved in more rounds of deciphering cryptic codes under duress, visiting hidden chambers and tunnels, revealing secrets of a hidden cult (whose membership as always includes one of the greatest human minds ever), saving the world by realizing but NOT revealing an earth shattering truth, trying to escape the bad guys with a beautiful woman for company, a trail of dead bodies left by a psychopathic zealot facing death etc etc. It is literally,just another day in the life of Robert Langdon.

Looking at earlier works of Dan Brown, The Lost Symbol is closer to Angels and Demons than Da Vinci Code. The basis of story is ancient, suppressed wisdom and science providing a basis for religious beliefs.This is justified by using the words of great thinkers (”Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic- Arthur C Clarke”), common jargon (”mind over matter”), ancient texts and their connection to modern science.The Lost Symbol believes in existence of philosophical and religious beliefs like afterlife, soul, human consciousness, collective consciousness etc and explains them through Noetic Science- a fairly recent phenomenon.

This is where it slips up. His earlier works dealt with an alternate, possible explanation of events e.g. Vinci Code dealt with a different explanation of events in the bible. The Lost Symbol veers into the abstract and loses the reader. It even copies an experiment to calculate the weight of the soul but does not mention that the same experiment concluded that dogs do not have souls.Also,the whole idea of consciousness/God/soul has been discussed with only human species as the focus.

Personally, my first question to someone who tells me “Humans die and go to heaven/hell” is “Where do other species go?” The reply to that question is usually a blank stare or a pitying look.I could not identify with many of the concepts having a scientific basis but as said in the book, people did believe that world is flat. However, it will take more than a work of fiction to convince me.

The key to Dan Brown novels are not the plots but the stories built on those plots- The twists and turns, the “Aha moments” when everything falls in place only for next piece of jigsaw to be more convoluted than earlier ones, the fast narrative including history and symbology lessons, the secrets hidden in plain sight, the art, the architecture etc. The Lost Symbol has all of that but they are not as numerous as in his earlier works. Most of the puzzles and cryptic codes are based on a common, recurring factor being used in different ways which makes them somewhat predictable. Also, there is a role reversal with Robert Langdon playing a skeptic and others, playing believers trying to convince him.This results in fewer words and even fewer memorable monologues from the main character.

The Lost Symbol carries over the biggest flaw from earlier Dan Brown novel- the stretched, lame ending (Seriously, who did not know the answer to the last,most important puzzle in Digital Fortress except the best cryptographers in the world who took pages and pages looking for the answer. Apparently, they knew cryptography but not googling) and leaves the reader feeling foolish, though not in a good way though.

The Lost Symbol has its moments e.g. the lectures of Robert Langdon, initial puzzles, the masonic history etc which make it an interesting read but not a must read. The non-definitive end which will leave many people confused along with many negatives make it not as unputdownable as DaVinci Code. The Lost Symbol is like a movie with an engrossing first half and a tepid, predictable second half with a stretched, open-ended climax.

Digital Fortress, Angels & Demons and Da Vinci Code are some of the most engrossing books around. However, the Lost Symbol is to Dan Brown what Order of the Phoenix is to JK Rowling- Books that were fillers and the reader has to finish instead of hoping for more. Hopefully, future stories of Robert Langdon (Dan Brown recently said there will be 12 in total) will be better.

—————————————————————————————–

Comments:

a.If a psychopath needs some information that only you have, it is advisable not to tell him and outlive your usefulness.Apparently, ancient wisdom missed out on that and hence, characters in the Lost Symbol did too.

b. If ancient texts like Upanishads, Bible etc talk about String Theory, Relativity etc, maybe Neanderthals knew about Unified Theory. Some say it was because of aliens, some say because of God and some say because they were wiser than us. Couldnt it be just that we are reading too much into it?

c. The Solomon Key is a far better name than The Lost Symbol. It becomes a brilliant pun with one of the lead character as Solomon. It would not have affected the story or the end. The reason for this would be a spoiler.

Dear Nobel committee,

I cannot thank you enough for awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Barack Obama. Now, millions of people worldwide whose ultimate dream is to win the Nobel prize can sleep in peace.In one move, you have taken the shine off the most distinguished award in the the world and brought peace to people.

I have the utmost respect for Mr Barack Obama as a leader, politician, thinker and visionary. However, with his inauguration as the 44th President on Jan 20, 2009, cut-off date for nominations being Feb 1, 2009 and decision on Nobel winners for 2009 taken inside of his first year as the President is something, I doubt, even he would have envisioned.

Clearly, you people did not want to fail in your efforts to give hope to millions.A unanimous decision was taken for his “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between people”.

The will of Mr Alfred Nobel said “….one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses…“.  Now, I might be wrong but this talks about “discoveries made“, “literary work produced” and “done the best work“. Efforts alone do not merit a Nobel, results do. Would you award a physicist for “extraordinary efforts to solve the mysteries of cosmos” or a writer for “extraordinary efforts to create an unmatched work of literature”? I suppose not.

The argument would be “Peace cannot be quantized like results in Physics, Chemistry etc”. Well, true.  But results are for people to see. Nuclear disarmament- In progress, Afghanistan &  Iraq Wars- In progress, Solution for poverty in Africa- In progress etc etc. Has the world become so much safer, so much more secure, so much more peaceful place in the past one year because of Mr Obama?

Nobel prize for peace is the epitome of recognition. If Mr Obama achieves peace throughout the world now, would you give him another Nobel? Most probably you will not as that would be a break from tradition which might force you to look at other issues like no posthumous Nobel or no Nobel for Mathematics.

I always assumed Nobel prize was like the justice system.Deserving candidates might not win but candidates that do not deserve it yet, will not win. I was wrong with that or maybe you know things that the world is not aware of yet.

All said and done, there will be lots of views and counterviews.Personally speaking, I will sleep better from now. Thank you for that.

Computer gaming industry is one of the biggest industries worldwide. Most games work off a simple formula. Lots of action, some impossibly hot chicks (except Lara Croft.Jolie as Lara was hotter than Lara in games), lots of blood, a badass attitude, guns, different kinds of power-ups etc

Shadow of the Colossus (SOTC) defies this trend. SOTC is to games what The Godfather is to books and The Shawshank Redemption is to movies. One doesnt have to be a movie aficionado to fall in love with the story of Andy Dufresne nor a bibliophile to appreciate the inner turmoil of Don Vito Corleone or Michael Corleone. Similarly, one need not be a gamer to enjoy the experience that is Shadow of the Colossus.

Shadow of the Colossus starts simply. Girl is dead, guy wants her back, a supernatural entity asks him to complete a task and warns him that the results maybe dire for him but the girl would be alive again. And like all love struck guys, the guy goes to complete the task. The only hitch is that the task is to kill 16 colossi that inhabit the land. Sounds like just another game? Worse, it sounds like a game with a mushy love story. It isnt.

First of all, no minions to kill. Colossi are the only enemies to face. The only chick in picture is already dead and she is no Lara Croft. The colossi are mostly stone, so no blood. No guns or power ups, the guy has to kill 16 colossi with a sword, a bow and an unlimited supply of arrows. No elaborate button presses, mini games, side quests or fighting styles. As for the attitude, the guy is out to kill 16 colossi for the sake of his dead love. That qualifies him as stupid and not a badass. SOTC does not measure upto any of the established norms of computer games.

Inspite of that, Shadow of the Colossus is one of the best games on PS2 or on any platform. The environments are hauntingly beautiful with almost no living creatures. The soundtrack oscillates between depressingly melancholic and ultimate jubilation. But the biggest factor (literally) are the colossi.

The term colossus was never so apt in gaming. The colossi are seriously massive beasts of stone with most of them not even fitting in the screen. The first colossus inspires awe followed by the realization that one has to kill 16 of them, armed with a sword which is < 1% of their size and arrows that that look like toothpicks on them, which in turn leads to fear and hopelessness (The music keeps pace with these mood changes). Killing the first 2-3 colossi can be frustrating filled with swearing at the game, the developers, the colossi and God (I sincerely hope my neighbours have soundproof doors or their kids will be scarred for life). After getting a hang of the controls and camera angles, killing each colossus is akin to a roller coaster.

The developers have done things differently. The hero has health regeneration i.e. If he is low on health, he can go to what we refer to as his happy place i.e. somewhere away from the colossus to regain his health. The fact that killing a colossus takes about an hour and usually involves lot of platforming. If the player dies midway, or falls during platforming, he has to do it all again makes the player desperate, the process of killing the colossus brings a rush of adrenaline and the last blow to bring down a colossus brings about a sense of triumph unmatched in any game. Acute desperation, adrenaline rush and triumph. These psychological factors have been exploited to the hilt in the game.

There are some negatives too with awkward camera angles and controls topping the list. The end is too abrupt and story feels stupid but well, the hero was warned about the dire consequences.

These shortcomings do not change the fact that Shadow of the Colossus is a must play game. Initially, you will hate yourself for buying it, you will curse the controls and camera angle but at the end of game, you will realize the environments, music and psychological factors make Shadow of the Colossus one of the games which elevate computer gaming to an art . Sounds like a hyperbole? Just download and listen to the OST.

I love one-liners. I end up remembering one-liners for years and they end up being a part of my psyche. The power of one-liners is such that just thinking about “I do wish we could chat longer, but I’m having an old friend for dinner” gives me the chills. Secretly, we all long to be in a situation where we can use our favourite quotes.

It might be telling a friend “Elementary, my dear Watson” (although Sherlock Holmes never used it in the books and using this line in front of a Sherlock Holmes junkie will prove what a noob you really are), telling the girlfriend “I’ll be back” in our best impression of Arnold (although chances are that she will not get the significance of the line or worse, will respond back with “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”), boasting in front of our friends that “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” and failing miserably as only the Godfather can do that.

My last post was over a year ago after changing jobs and this one is again after changing jobs. One eventful year filled with ups and downs and I didn’t write anything about it

“Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony”. The last post was how blogger widget on Marvin should make me blog more often and now I am posting after a year in the tried and tested wordpress “edit post” interface.The last post was after changing jobs and this one is again after changing jobs. One eventful year filled with ups and downs and I didn’t write anything about it

So why is the itch back? Well, having an independent blog was something that I always wanted and I finally decided to go for it. But the tipping point for this post was something I noticed last weekend.

Being an impulsive shopper, I had this urge to get a blue jeans as a blue jeans & a black shirt should be part of any wardrobe. While shopping for the jeans, I saw first hand how brands appeal to our vanity and this is what this post is about

Now as everyone knows, there are three different fits for any jeans: Comfort Fit, Straight Fit and Slim Fit (The names are self-explanatory). Normal order of preference is Slim Fit>Straight Fit>Comfort Fit. I always thought that these would be some kind of standard measurements but I was in for a surprise. I discovered that size of Levi’s Comfort Fit is the same as Lee’s Straight Fit and size of Levi’s Straight Fit is same as Lee’s Slim Fit.

Now, lets take an example of Mr John who is a normal guy i.e. he wants to look as good as possible and more importantly, feel that he is looking as good as possible. After all, for some reason his confidence level is directly proportional to his feeling that he is looking as good as possible and well, both are non-negotiable requirements for the ladies. Mr John has the option of buying a Levi’s Comfort Fit OR Straight Fit Lee. Like all normal guys, whatever, he purchases, has to be vetted by his gf. Like all normal guys, he would prefer to tell his gf that he is wearing a straight fit instead of comfort fit. After all, comfort fit signifies flab and straight fit signifies fit and like all normal guys he does not like to be judged or to be thought of as flabby by his gf. So what do you think our Mr John would do?

Another example was at Nilgiris. A guy was picking up some fairness cream and there was some clerical error resulting in the guy standing for approx 5 minutes with the cream.The crowd was giving him weird looks as if he was picking up some drugs.Poor guy was so distraught but still determined to go through his purchase.

Sounds boring? It is. It feels stupid and boring to actually read about what many people do, including people we know.Vanity is supposed to be a cardinal sin but in today’s world vanity is glorified and is being banked upon by marketers. A new term- “Metrosexual” was coined to remove the stigma, displayed by men, when it came to using beauty products. Why cant people just be themselves? The answer is as Jerry observed in Boston Legal “When it comes to the opposite sex, we all try to be better than we are. We try to appear more attractive, funnier, more confident.” Trying to be someone who deep down we know we are not is something everyone does. Masks as they are called. However, we can ignore the truth but cant change it. As long as we can ignore it, its all good. Social animals, we are.

Well, time to follow Real Madrid’s match on goal.com. No sports channel picked up LaLiga rights for Indian Subcontinent and streaming is too low quality for me.But how can sports channel ignore a league which has Messi, CR9, Kaka, Xavi, Iniesta, Henry, Zlatan, Benzema, Raul, Xabi over EPL. Makes no sense, business or otherwise. But then I am reminded, neither does the whole concept of “Metrosexual”. Time to sign off. Hala Madrid !!

& just FYI, title of the post is the line by Al Pacino from the movie “The Devil’s Advocate”

It does.

Spectacularly.

The Dark Knight begins with Gotham finding its feet and its voice against the criminal underworld. After the fall of Carmaine Falcone, the remaining crime bosses are the ones in-charge. However, the newly elected district attorney. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) along with assistant district attorney, Rachel Dawses (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) are the ones opposing them and succeeding. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent plays the role of “The White Knight” of Gotham with aplomb and comes across as a sincere guy who really wants to do good. Batman (Christian Bale) is happy with the way things are going and even comments in a scene that Gotham may no longer need Batman. But none of them accounted for one thing, The Joker.

If the hero can only be as good as the villain then Batman enjoys a huge advantage over other superheroes. The Joker is unparalleled in his unpredictability, creativity and committing the most heinous of crimes with a smile on his face and one liner on his lips.

The Joker (Heath Ledger) unleashes terror throughout Gotham in his hunt for Batman and almost succeeds in bringing down Batman. Heath Ledger has created a psychopath which compares to the likes of Hannibal Lector and Jack Torrance (The Shining). Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the funny kind of joker who would create mayhem while laughing. Heath Ledger’s Joker creates anarchy with a grin on his face and ice-cold sarcasm in his eyes. He exists just to destroy. He is frightening because no one knows where or how will he strike next. The only thing that can be predicted as that he is going to strike and strike big. He is hated because he asks questions that we do not want to answer. Every one-liner joker says deserves to be on a tee especially “Why so serious?”. This line is as iconic as “I’m having an old friend for dinner” (Silence of the Lambs) or “I see dead people” (The Sixth Sense). The last role of Heath Ledger is his best one. It is an Oscar-worthy performance if there ever was one.

The Joker dominates Batman to an extent that batman comes to a crossroad: to give in to Joker’s demands to stop the mayhem or to try and fight him while the whole city stands against him. He has Alfred (Michael Cain) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) by his side but that might not be enough.

Who wins in the end is up for debate and for you to see and decide.

However, the movie does have some flaws. Rachel Dawses is once again more of a showpiece. Even Alfred and Lucius are more of a guest appearance than a full fledged role.

Non-Batman fan(atics) might find that the first half drags a little as it sets the theme for the action packed second half and there is one big flaw at the ending that would make the Joker fans jump up and protest.

The Dark Knight is almost the perfect superhero movie. Batman Begins set the tone for restarting the batman franchisee and The Dark Knight takes it up several notches. The story, direction, dialogues, special effects, screenplay could not have been better. The Dark Knight is a dark, superhero movie with edge of the seat action. But what makes The Dark Knight as the de facto standard for superhero movies is the depiction of struggle between good and evil along with the internal struggle of Batman himself (thankfully without any tears cough Superman Returns cough).

The Dark Knight and The Joker are hard acts to follow. But hey, that is exactly what we thought after Batman Begins.

– Courtesy, Bangalore Mirror