The Fine Art of Over-Rating

Every age has a favourite darling. And every darling has a golden age. And when the darling becomes the favourite in the age that is golden, the result is an insufferable dose of good, old-fashioned over-rating. In today's post I'm going to list some of the people, mostly famous people, who I personally think are hugely over-rated by the media and subsequently (or consequently) are rewarded with a large amount of undeserved hero-worship by an adoring but intensely gullible public. So here are the most overrated (in my opinion, at least) people of our generation:

Abhishek Bachchan: Since his name starts with an 'A', I thought he'd be a nice place to start with. And even if the people on this list were ranked in order of most undeserving, he'd definitely be at the top or very near it. Since the past 6 years I've been trying to figure out why he's constantly been lavished with so much acclaim by critics and fans alike for his supposed 'acting abilities' and 'charm' when it has been clear to me from the outset that the only thing charming about him is the fact that he has great genes. The man cannot act to save his life (and neither can Fardeen Khan, another star-son with alarmingly low artistic powers - but at least Fardeen is showered with his fair share of flak from time to time), and yet the media and critics go on and on about his 'powerful' screen presence and restrained execution of his roles. There's a difference between restrained acting and NOT acting. If only the people of this country understood this simple fact.

Kimi Raikkonen: He was supposed to be the youngest world champion in Formula One history. He was also supposed to be the sparkling new heir to Michael Schumacher's throne of F1 dominance. Perhaps someone should have told these two oft-repeated truths to a rampaging Fernando Alonso, who not only stole the 'youngest champion' title from Kimi but also usurped Schumacher's throne while the legend was still in business. I'm sorry if sworn Kimi fans are offended by this, but the fact remains that when Kimi was at McLaren, the team was desperately floundering and in the depths of doom. This year, Alonso joined McLaren, and all of a sudden they're comfortably leading the drivers' standings. Engine problems, bad luck, a sub-standard car - what's the latest excuse for Kimi's continued failure to live up to the expectations? A team that is too perfect, perhaps?

Martin Scorsese: I must confess that I haven't seen many of the most-acclaimed movies of this supposedly genius of a filmmaker, but if the praise that some of his latest movies garnered is anything to go by, I haven't missed much. Gangs of New York was quite intolerably boring, The Aviator was really nothing great and The Departed has to be one of the best examples of how an unnecessarily long second half can completely ruin a movie. Honestly, I think the Oscar jury, for once, was right in denying Scorsese the glory of the Best Director award for as long as they did in spite of the nearly two decades of sustained critical acclaim that sat so prettily on his resume . Just goes to show the critics don't know everything.

Saurav Ganguly: Sure, he led India to the final of the 2003 World Cup, and beat the visiting Australians at their own game in 2001, but has there ever been a more self-centred player in the history of Indian cricket than Sourav Ganguly? Two years ago he almost brought Indian cricket to its knees with his ugly altercation with coach Greg Chappell, and this year he was at it again, creating divisions in the side which very probably led to India's humiliating early exit at the 50-50 World Cup. And don't even get me started on his glaring shortcomings as a batsman in the longer version of the game. I, for one, am really at a loss to see why a man who is clearly afraid of the short ball, creates ungainly camps in the team and is as much a team player as Shoaib Akhtar gets such enormous and unwavering support from his countless fans. Perhaps it's just the Bengali tendency of over-hyping every single person who hails from the state of West Bengal at work here.

Almost every fashion designer on the planet: This one's my favourite. Just when you think that clothing designs can't get any more bizarre, out comes a fashion designer showing off to an unsuspecting public an outfit that tightly binds your two hands together in a manner that forces you to constantly keep your hands outstretched and parallel to the ground. I honestly felt very sorry for that unfortunate model. Tell me, how many of the outfits that celebrated designers showcase in the scores of fashion shows across the world are actually wearable? It's one thing being creative and letting your imagination run wild in a field that prizes innovation and inventiveness, but quite another to put your admiring patrons through long periods of discomfort and embarrassment. Some would say there's no difference, but others (including me) would say there's all the difference in the world.

Pete Sampras: Alright, this may be a shocker for some - Sampras is the one who's won the most Grand Slam titles in history, right? Pete Sampras was a great tennis player, I agree. The only reason he's on this list is because roughly half of the tennis following population considers it appropriate to call Sampras the GOAT (or Greatest Of All Time, for the uninformed) in spite of the dazzling four years that Roger Federer has just put on show in front of an awe-struck audience. Federer is a better and more complete player than Sampras ever was, period. I know this may sound childish and a touch harsh on Sampras who was indeed a wonderful champion, but I can't understand how a player whose only major weapons were a monster serve and a terrific volley - ok, I'll add the running forehand to that frighteningly small list - and who never even made it to the finals of the claycourt Grand Slam can be talked of in GOAT discussions with as much reverence as is Sampras. Maybe this time it's the American tendency of over-praising the sons of its soil at work.

Heavy metal/hard rock bands: One of the biggest mysteries I've ever come across - why would loud, mostly unpleasant noise (that is actually supposed to be 'music') and generally crude and frustrated-with-life lyrics command millions of devoted fans all over the world? Does the fact that most rock musicians are shabbily dressed, cocaine-snorting, potential suicide candidates somehow add to the charm of rock/metal music? As I said, one of the biggest mysteries I've ever come across.

Ayn Rand: Ok, her books make for fairly interesting reading, but that's just about as good as it gets. Her strangely self-glorifying philosophies, fierce trumpeting of Objectivism and generally scathing views on generosity and charity that are prevalent in most of her major works are nothing short of laughable when thought about for more than a minute. Moreover, the effects that reading an Ayn Rand book can have on an impressionable youngster are quite disturbing to imagine. Quite why every celebrity worth his or her salt likes to declare that The Fountainhead is the best book they've ever read (it's not even the best book that Rand's written - Atlas Shrugged is, in my opinion, a better read) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they think it makes them sound smart. In Rand's case, nevertheless, there is one small comfort: literary critics have, by and large, dismissed her writing as melodramatic and unimportant. Maybe the critics do know some things sometimes then.

Shilpa Shetty: She became a household name in the UK by claiming to be a victim of racism, and for that is held up in our country as a shining example of an Indian making waves internationally. Do I need to say any more?


Whew! That's a long list. And yet I haven't mentioned even half of the many names that came to my mind while starting this post. We do seem to have perfected the art of over-rating. How wonderful.

Cricket Gets Its Saviour, Tennis On The Lookout For One

As Chris Gayle got down to some seriously savage ball-thwacking in the first match of the Twenty20 World Cup between West Indies and South Africa, all I could think was: why are they still playing 50-over cricket? If any cricket follower still feels the need to defend the logic of holding 50-over tournaments in the face of the adrenaline-rushing, maddeningly exciting blur that is Twenty20 cricket, then I have to fear for his sanity. Cricket needed something to save itself from the embarrassing doldrums that it was plunged into after the match-fixing saga, and it has got one. Twenty20 is fresh, innovative, thrilling and intense: just about everything you'd ask for in a modern sport. Thankfully, Twenty20 is also a money-spinner, and that would probably be a good enough reason to induce the bunch of dolts that is the ICC, which had the gall to insist to an outraged cricket community that this year's World Cup in the West Indies was a 'great success', to do some progressive work for a change. And while they're busy slobbering over the enormous mounds of money that they're bound to make through this new golden egg, will someone advise the idiots to push for Twenty20 cricket to be included in the Olympics?


Speaking of Olympics, I'm sure the fact that tennis is an Olympic sport must have alerted a lot of tennis followers to the deliciously fascinating possibilities the next year holds for a certain male tennis player. Roger Federer has achieved just about everything there is to achieve in tennis, having this week added yet another Grand Slam title to his already bulging collection by defeating Novak Djokovic in the US Open final, but a 'Golden Slam' might just be the one thing that firmly and eternally closes the GOAT debate. It's never been done before by a male player - Steffi Graf managed to win the Olympic gold medal in addition to the 4 Grand Slams in 1988, but no man has ever even come close to such a feat. Of course, Andre Agassi does have a career Golden Slam, but his career spanned two decades, so there. (On a side note, isn't it simply fabulous that the only two players in the history of tennis to have completed Golden Slams, whether in a calendar year or a career, ended up being married to each other?). The French Open remains the most worrying obstacle for Federer to achieve this Holy Grail-like accomplishment, but I like to believe that he's been saving it for the year when the full force of his achievements will hit the tennis world like a tornado. Yes, a Golden Slam next year would be totally stunningly terrific, and honestly, if anyone could ever do it, then it's got to be him. Federer will, however, have to watch out for an outlandish young player who likes to do silly impersonations of his well-respected peers, looks to the crowd instead of his coach when in need of advice whether to challenge a call, and who goes by the name of Novak Djokovic.

They said Federer didn't win the US Open final as much as Djokovic lost it, and for once they were right. When you get 7 set points spread over 2 sets, 5 of them on your serve, and fail to convert a single one of them, it says a lot about your poor mental strength, but if you're playing Federer, it also says a lot about your huge talent. Federer played awful for long periods during the game, I agree, but at times he was also outdone by Djoker's range of shots, his amazing movement, his effective serve and his exquisitely potent backhand. He's almost like a mini-Federer, to be very blunt. Of course, Federer managed to withstand all of Djokovic's weapons without so much as a grunt of frustration, armed as he always is with his own, much more important weapons like the ability to play the big points alarmingly well and an almost indefatigable serve. And that's precisely why he is THE Federer, all glory and perfection, and not a 'mini-Federer'. But Djokovic, it cannot be denied, is an irresistible talent, and it seems clear that from now on Federer will have not one (we've almost forgotten Rafael Nadal, haven't we?), but two great rivals. All the more motivation, I think, for Federer to raise the bar even higher, even if age isn't exactly on his side, and go for something that no man has ever dreamed of before. And oh, Pete Sampras's record is just a formality now, don't you think? 14 Grand Slams? If I were Federer, and that's a big 'if', I wouldn't settle for anything less than 18. Maybe even 20. Scary? You bet.

Of Sportsmanship and Showmanship

So, one half of my US Open nightmare has come true. Justine Henin has just capped a stunningly successful, almost Federer-like year with an incandescent showing at the year's final Grand Slam, destroying three former champions - Serena Williams, Venus Williams and Svetlana Kuznetsova in succession to a well-deserved 7th Grand Slam trophy, and I'm not smiling. Sure, Henin may be an aesthetic shot-maker and her backhand may be 'a thing of beauty', as many people like to put it, but her lack of personality and charisma make it very hard for me to root for her in any match that she plays. Of course, her 'incident' in the 2003 French Open semi-final against Serena Williams, when she raised her hand during Serena's service motion leading to a serving fault, and subsequently refused to back Serena's perfectly legitimate request for another first serve may have a big part to play in my unqualified prejudice against her. Unfortunately for Henin, that incident isn't the only one that people like to twirl about when vociferously pointing out how un-sportsmanlike Henin can get. The 2006 Australian Open final, when Henin retired while trailing Amelie Mauresmo 6-1, 2-0, thus denying Mauresmo the unadulterated glory that comes with a maiden, hard-fought Grand Slam triumph, is still fresh in everyone's minds, perhaps much more vividly in mine. I suppose you might say that talking about these past fallacies in the face of the unquestioned brilliance that Henin has put on show this year is childish, but is it that difficult for Henin to muster up a belated but much-warranted apology, specially about the French Open incident? Ok, I think I'm starting to sound like the sore and cranky statistician that I always do after things don't go according to my liking in a sports match, so I'll just let Henin be for the moment.

While we're talking of un-sportsmanlike sportspersons, the name Serena Williams can't be too far away, can it, particularly since she chooses to state in her press conference after getting whipped by Justine Henin that she lost because "Justine played a lot of lucky shots". Alright, I know that press conference made Serena sound really bad, but that doesn't quite explain the unmistakable hatred that most tennis fans (well ok, when I say 'most tennis fans' I only mean most of the people who visit internet message boards) have shown in spelling out their distaste at Serena's words. Serena Williams has been, in the words of her father Richard, an arrogant "pit bull" for the whole of the 10-odd years that she's been on the women's tour. In fact, most tennis analysts in the past have admitted that her stubborn refusal to believe that anybody could beat her when she was playing her best had a major part to play in her 8 Grand Slam trophy wins. Which is why it is plain irritating to find people still giving her grief about the 'lack of respect' that she gives her opponents. Even though I personally wish she took a leaf or two out of her sister Venus's book who has matured considerably over the years, I can totally understand if she still wants to doggedly believe that she can be the best player in the world anytime that she really wants to. After all, isn't 'believing in yourself' the favourite mantra that mentors like to throw at their charges to inspire them to greatness and beyond? There is, of course, also the inescapable fact that Serena is every bit as good a tennis player as she claims - she can be hideously overweight, sorely bereft of match practice and completely lacking the agility and speed that made her such an irresistible force back in her glory days, and still manage to win a Grand Slam ranked 81st in the world. I'd like to see Henin try that. Serena is still the woman with the highest Grand Slam tally among current players, and has been the best player of the decade according to many tennis experts. So why all the malicious Williams-bashing then? I don't like to bring up the R-word, but it's very difficult to comprehend why a Martina Hingis, who is fair, pretty and lissome, can get away with downright offensive remarks, alarmingly childish tantrums and embarrassingly loud sobs after her losses while Serena Williams is labeled a disgrace to the sport of tennis for unwaveringly believing in her own abilities, unless there was some sick and disgusting attitude at the back of it all. For those of you who didn't get it, I'm talking about racism. And before this post gets any more sordid, I think I should move on to less unpleasant things.

The men's final will begin in a few hours' time, and I just can't wait for it because it's going to be a cracking match, if the level of play of the two finalists throughout the tournament is anything to go by. There's been a lot of talk about this being the first 'interesting' US Open final in years, and while I'm willing to give Novak Djokovic the credit for bringing 'interest' back to US Open finals, I just don't see him putting it past Roger Federer barely two years into his thus far impressive career. Remember, we're talking about defeating the man who's won 11 Grand Slams in the space of 4 years, and who managed to defeat Andy Roddick, a former No.1 player and US Open champion, in straight sets, in spite of the fact that Roddick was probably playing the best match of his career. That's unreal, unbelievable fantasy, that's GOAT stuff, that is. Djokovic needs to improve his serve a little, and learn to be more aggressive, and for heaven's sake he needs to drop all of that ludicrous showmanship and arrogance. It's amusing, even entertaining, to watch an up-and-coming tennis prodigy doing imitations of well-known tennis stars to thunderous applause from the crowd, but it's simply unacceptable for a potential Grand Slam champion to be doing that. Get a grip on yourself, Novak, you want to earn a little respect from tennis enthusiasts. And oh, while you're preparing yourself for the final, you might want to have a nice long chat with Rafael Nadal and collect a few tips from your physio about the best way to survive a marathon, lifeforce-sapping encounter in the New York heat. Against Federer, you'll need all the help that you can get.

By the way, if you're wondering what the 'other half' of my US Open nightmare is, it's Djokovic winning the men's title. So much for a stress-free US Open final.

Bad And Worse

Right then. This has got to be one of the first US Open tournaments I have ever watched. The horror show started yesterday evening, just the 5th day of the Open, a time you wouldn't normally associate with heartbreaking losses. First Marat Safin, that charming little volcano-man, went down with disappointing tameness to Stanislas Wawrinka. Then Novak Djokovic, that outrageously gifted but hideously arrogant peacock of a man didn't go down to an inspired Radek Stepanek, instead eking out a scary five-set marathon. I say scary because it is clear to me now, if it wasn't already before the Open began, that Djoker has it in him to give a mighty challenge to the Grand Slam dominance of Federer-Nadal. And that was just the start of my miseries. The big blow came next. Lleyton Hewitt, the one sportsperson I have stood by through injuries, atrocious lack of form and repeated humiliating whippings at the hands of Federer, gave me yet another solid reason why I should probably move on to a new favourite player. I mean come on, Hewitt has become so nondescript now that the tennis websites didn't even bother to write anything about his defeat, which by all means is still significant considering he's a two-time Slammer. I've been trying to find the story covering his match all day, hoping that there perhaps must have been a legitimate reason why he lost to a decidedly over-the-hill claycourter like Augustin Calleri, like maybe an injury or something, but haven't had any luck so far. And much as I hate to admit this, there probably is a legitimate reason for the tragedy - that Hewitt is just not good enough anymore. Sad, sad.

Things just got worse today. Maria Sharapova, the defending champion, lost to a player whose name I can't even spell, let alone pronounce. It was someone called Radwanska, I think. Yeah, I know, Sharapova cannot lose to a Radwanska in the 3rd round, just a year after her glory days of defeating Amelie Mauresmo and Justine Henin back-to-back. But guess what, the blonde Russian has regressed by around two years instead of moving anywhere forward since January. If you thought being regularly dismantled by a Williams sister wasn't bad enough, look what's happening to her now: being bounced out by 17-year-old Radwanskas. Poor Maria, the avowed anti-Pova club members aren't going to be anything less than scathing in heaping their gleeful scorn on this latest embarrassment. Incidentally, I don't think I can visit a tennis discussion forum anytime soon, considering how vociferously I have been battling these distinguished anti-Pova members for the past month. I'm sorry, but reading a thousand-odd statements like "Look where the overrated brat is now", "She's just another Kournikova" or "HAHAHAHA" is just not my thing.

So could things get any worse after these tragic few hours? Well yes, they could. Sania Mirza could get overawed by a higher-ranked player and put in a completely listless performance in her 3rd round match. And she did precisely that. To be honest, Anna Chakvetadze is probably a much better player than Mirza and will likely defeat her 4 time out of 5, but that doesn't make the loss any less sad. Mirza needs to do well at the Slams if she has any hopes of being counted as a world-class player, and clearly she hasn't done too much of that yet. Chakvetadze, on the other hand, suddenly finds herself in a very favourable position now that Sharapova is out, and I'm willing to bet that she'd be the one to come through the bottom half of the draw and book that final against a Williams.

Right then. This is now officially the worse US Open I have ever watched. All I need now is for Roger Federer to not win the men's trophy. Or for Djokovic to win it. Or for Justine Henin to win the women's trophy. Wow, the US Open is fraught with more potential disasters than the regular Hollywood blockbuster. Maybe I need to stop following tennis and watch more movies instead. Hollywood blockbusters.

Birth Of An Industry

First up, I want to give out a disclaimer for all those who think there are too many movie reviews floating around blogosphere and the world in general: this is NOT a movie review of Ratatouille. This post is dedicated not just to one movie, but to the whole wonderful realm of animation. It's about time I did this too, considering just how much I love animated movies. So anyway, has anyone noticed that animated movies are no longer just a sporadic summer attraction that appeal exclusively to kids? Hollywood has been pumping in the big bucks into all things animated, and the creative minds of the world's biggest movie industry have, by and large, responded magnificently. The best part about this revolution of sorts is that moviegoers across the world have given their whole-hearted approval to the Hollywood bigwigs' inclinations towards expanding the genre which once had a very limited appeal into a full-fledged, multi-million industry.

Consider the facts: Shrek 2 is the 3rd highest grossing movie in the history of US cinema and the 8th highest grossing movie worldwide. Shrek The Third, despite the mostly poor reviews, came through most of the intense summer competition this year unscathed, and ended up making more money than Pirates 3, Transformers and, gasp! Harry Potter 5. The Lion King and Finding Nemo hold their own steady places on the all-time box-office list, while last year Happy Feet gave James Bond and Casino Royale a run for their stylish money. And get this: as many as 8 animated movies find a place on imdb's list of the Top 250 movies of all time. Clearly, the animation business is booming. Of course, there are many who've been protesting that there's been an overdose of animated movies the past couple of years, and I do admit that churning out Madagascar and The Wild, two movies with almost identical visuals and storylines, in very quick succession was a bit of a perfect personification of the word 'overkill'. But then again, animation is not just a genre any longer - it's an industry; it has its share of lean periods, as I'm sure does every other film industry in the world. And just when duds like Surf's Up and Barnyard were starting to give the naysayers solid justifications for their nay-sayings, out comes a little gem like Ratatouille.

Most critics have used horribly predictable words like 'sumptuous', 'feast', 'delicious' and a whole lot of other food-centric adjectives to describe Ratatouille, so I think I'll steer clear of those tasteless clichés. Ratatouille is not delicious, delectable or luscious; it's a marvellous example of high quality cinema that will, in the long run, prove to be the standard by which all other animated movies are judged. For once, imdb's users aren't wrong in their ratings - Ratatouille fully deserves its 8.5 rating and 77th rank in the Top 250 list of imdb. If not for anything else, the movie deserves credit for going beyond the genre-specific, or should I say industry-specific premises that have been so thoroughly exploited by other filmmakers. For instance, there's no faithful-but-dumb sidekick here. Nor are there too many pop culture references or crude, childish jokes. And considering the very mature handling of the story, it would've been truly embarrassing if Remy, the protagonist, had found a facile love interest at the end. The movie has an actual, identifiable storyline, which is very rare for an animated movie. And that's precisely where it scores handsomely.

There's something delightfully elegant and classy about the pacing of the story, the visuals, and of course, the fantastic dialogue. Maybe it's the French element in it, I don't know. Then there's the quality of the animation itself. I watched the movie with a friend who's doing engineering, and even though he was a little bored that "it wasn't outrageously hilarious", he couldn't stop raving about the precision and level of detail in the visuals. Of course, Pixar has set very high standards for animation with the ultra-realistic Cars and the beautiful The Incredibles, but that doesn't stop us from being amazed, every time, at how efficiently and perfectly the computer geeks do their job. The background score is indescribably fantastic, and since it is indescribable, I'm not going to attempt to describe it. The subplots are well-crafted, the actors chosen for the characters almost perfect. The ending is innovative and pleasant, and the monologue by Anton Ego (voiced by Peter O'Toole) at the end has to be one of the most beautiful and meaningful speeches I've ever heard in a movie. Frankly, I couldn't really find anything to complain about the movie, except perhaps that they could've made it a little funnier. But Ratatouille would've been a very good movie even if it didn't have a single gag in it. That, however, is not the case, which must make it obvious, really, that this is one movie that no one should possibly miss. Personally, I'd definitely rank this as the second best animated movie I've ever seen (I'm sorry, but nothing beats Shrek for me).

Now look what I've done - I've ended up writing a review of Ratatouille in spite of the bold (and pretentious, now that I think of it) disclaimer at the start. But honestly, I couldn't help it. I just had to write something in praise of such a heart-warming yet skillful attempt at movie-making. Oh well, I think I'll have to put in something now to make this sound less like a movie review. How about a Top-10 list of my favourite animated movies of all time? Yeah, it's cheesy, and it's unsophisticated, but what's life without a little cheese and a little unsophistication? Ok, I'm not even sure 'unsophistication' is a word, so I'll just get this over with without further ado. Here goes:
1. Shrek
2. Ratatouille
3. Shrek 2
4. Monsters, Inc.
5. The Incredibles
6. Ice Age
7. Flushed Away
8. Madagascar
9. Chicken Run
10. Shrek The Third

Cheesy Gets Fun

What is it with Steven Spielberg and aliens? Just about every significant movie about aliens, weird creatures or supersmart/monstrous/robotic freaks of nature in the past decade (and maybe even the decade before that) has had some connection with the legendary filmmaker. Which is not to say that he's always been brilliant at the gory extra-terrestrial dramas. War of the Worlds was a positively dull (and incomprehensible) CGI-reeking mess, while Men In Black had a tad too many gooey/slimy/disgusting creatures for my liking. The fact remains, however, that Spielberg loves extra-terrestrials. Which is why it is not surprising that the man has a firm connection with the big movie with even bigger aliens, Transformers, as its executive producer. Of course, Michael Bay is the captain of the ship here, and though it was totally expected of him to continue with his tried-and-tested formula of making thrill-a-minute entertainers with no depth whatsoever, I thought Spielberg's involvement would have made some difference here. Well, I was wrong - Transformers is as mindlessly entertaining and frivolous as Hollywood could ever get. And hey, I'm not exactly complaining. It's alright if filmmakers go for the Star Wars/Spider-man effect for their blockbusters at times; we don't expect a Batman Begins every single time. And even if we did, we wouldn't really be granted our wish, would we?

The visual effects in Transformers are, to say the very least, stunning. The level of detail and sophistication, together with the scale and magnitude of the cinematography makes 300 look amateurish in comparison. One just wishes, however, that they'd slowed down the camera in some of the fight sequences - it's almost impossible to keep up with the lightning pace of the transformations and stunts. On the flip side, the plot of the movie is about as ridiculous as Roger Federer losing to Guillermo Canas twice in a row. I don't know about you, but the whole 'allspark-code-grandpa glasses' angle almost made me burst out with laughter. But the thing that really had me in splits was the line "I AM MEGATRON!!!" - not exactly the first words you'd expect to hear from a robo-alien that has been defrosted after a hundred years. Nevertheless, the flick was great entertainment - the over-the-top theatrics (especially the unfathomable attachment that the lead characters feel for the far-from-lovable robots), the melodramatic humour and the ultra-cool Megatron (aside from his ludicrous opening line) bring more than a few smiles to your face. You almost want to forgive the childish dialogue and lack of depth in the plot and characterizations. Transformers is immensely likable, and is one of those rare movies that you can watch any number of times without getting bored. So three cheers to frivolous cinema!

"Ba ba blu bley"

There are very few things that I never get tired of. One of them, of course, is Harry Potter. Possibly the only other is (and I hate how this makes me sound so childish) - Friends. Yeah, I know what you're thinking: here comes another Friends-infatuated teenager who can't see beyond the immature and slapstick humour of a cheesy, run-of-the-mill, mass-oriented comedy. But you're wrong, so very wrong. For one thing, I'm not a teenager (wow, it feels so great to say that!). For another, I defy anyone to watch a single episode of Friends and not go down in peals of laughter at the crazy antics of Monica, Chandler, Ross, Rachel, Phoebe and Joey. And yes, I never do get tired of watching the same old Friends episodes over and over again. Nor do most of my friends, if their constant insistence at borrowing my Friends DVDs (and their reluctance to return them, may I add) is anything to go by.

I got acquainted with the Friends phenomenon very late, I think around the time of the 8th season, somewhere around 2002. Prior to that, I just had some vague idea about a wildly popular TV show that starred a certain somebody called Jenifer Aniston, who, going by the frequent appearance of her name in the glamour section of newspapers, was in some way related to Brad Pitt. Heck, I didn't even know how Aniston looked, and for the first couple of episodes I kept confusing her with Courtney Cox. Fortunately, however, our dear old Star World and Zee Cafe never managed to air the latest seasons, so I watched the earlier seasons first and not the 8th season (which was the least funny of all the seasons, in my opinion, and would probably not have got me so completely hooked to the show). But once I got started, there was no looking back. The show was just so irresistibly funny! It may have been nothing more than loud, slapstick humour at times, but oh my God did I laugh while watching it! I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at a piece of fiction as I did during those countless 7.30 slumps on my couch (ok, maybe I did laugh harder while reading P.G. Wodehouse's Right-Ho Jeeves, but let's just confine 'fiction' to TV and movies for the moment, shall we?).

All the characters in the series were so well-etched out that you couldn't help but precisely understand all of their actions and reactions. When Joey bought a boat at an auction that he couldn't afford, you could understand why; when Phoebe decided to spy on her twin sister's stalker, you could empathise perfectly with her; when Ross put on a British accent in one of his classes for no rhyme or reason you had no problems in comprehending the innate rationale of it all. Of course, a major reason why the show was so amazing was the strength of its actors. I seriously doubt that as many as six actors with such fantastic comic timing as Matt LeBlanc, Courtney Cox, Jenifer Aniston, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry and Lisa Kudrow will ever be assembled together, whether on the big screen or the small. It's no wonder the producers had such a hard time getting them together for the last few seasons.

We all have our favourite Friends characters. For me it has always been the ridiculously hilarious Phoebe, who together with Nina Vanhorn from Just Shoot Me and Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes is the funniest fictional character I've ever come across. No matter how many times I watch the episode where Ross plans to play the bagpipes on Chandler and Monica's wedding, I always laugh hysterically at Phoebe's line "Eeee Peee Teee" in response to Ross saying, "You guys know the song - sing along!". In terms of acting ability, however, David Schwimmer and Jenifer Aniston stand out as the most accomplished. I'll probably never forget Aniston's expression when she says "Oh my God" in response to Joey saying that one of his moves on a date was to get the champagne served by a fan. And Schwimmer jumping around with Rachel and Phoebe when he gets his new apartment was simply, wonderfully priceless. Chandler, Monica and Joey all had their terrific moments too; Chandler's expression when he says "I'm leaving you" to Monica when Monica and Ross kept gushing about a tacky gaming show nearly had me in tears. Joey and Monica were probably the least funny of the characters in my opinion. I know Joey is a favourite with most fans, but he was just too dumb for my liking - you'd be hard pressed to find a man who doggedly keeps spewing out "Ba ba blu bley" when asked to repeat a French line "Ju ma pel Claude" (at least that's what it sounded like) in real life. But his impersonation of Chandler at the costume party was unforgettable, as was Chandler's reaction to it.

There are so many lines, so many funny situations, so many priceless expressions throughout the series that one blog post would be WAY too short to narrate them, even if I restricted myself to only the very finest ones. I know I have spent countless hours discussing the countless side-splitting gags with my friends, and like I said before, I honestly never get tired of doing that. It's immeasurably sad that plans for a movie version of the show didn't materialize; that movie would have had a mind-boggling run at the box office. Friends may have been only about crude and vulgar tomfoolery at times, but you always ended up laughing your heart out at the irresistible hilarity that was at the bottom of it all . If sheer enjoyment was the only yardstick for measuring such things, then Friends would have to be the greatest TV show ever. But that's obvious. Or, as Monica would say, "I KNOW!"