Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Basic Sandwich

I had an interesting sandwich yesterday. Four slices of bread, with a filling of exactly one slice of cucumber, one slice of tomato and a shrivelled sandwich leaf -I don't know what it's called- perhaps an indicator of how old the sandwich might have been, with a slightest layer of butter smeared on the inside and topped off with extra sour watery tomato sauce. All this for rupees ten. Yeah... figures. You don't normally get anything substantial inside a movie theatre for ten rupees.
I was watching Basic Instinct 2 at Symphony.
It isn't exactly a sequel, perhaps calling it the next installment would sound more appropriate. I went to the movie with mixed feelings. (You can put any 'hard' ones to rest. The movie has been superbly censored by our friendly neighbourhood Censor Board. The only thing bold would perhaps be the font in the poster. So what's left is just a murder mystery not a steamy murder mystery.) The movie follows the exploits of Catherine Trammel now in London with Norman Foster's latest cigar-shaped (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) addition to the London skyline, the Swiss Re building forming a very visible backdrop. As a visual, as a cigarette-lighter. It opens with, what else, Catherine Trammel involved in a car accident which kills her co-occupant, her latest boyfriend and no one's sure if it's a murder or an accident. Then she approaches the court appointed psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass, who let her walk free with his statement on the car accident, for counselling and you can't fathom why she's so keen on getting treated by him. And then they, what else, they get into a relationship, which by the white people's standards means, to have sex and if you're having a relationship with Catherine you can rest assured the sex will be wild and wet. Unfortunately you'll have to fantasise about all that because you don't get to see it on screen unlike the first one. But, ahhh... You can always get the DVD! Well, the relationship spins out of control and people around them start to drop like flies. All efforts are made to keep you wondering, "Is it Glass, or is it Trammel?" And finally you have the climax and an attempt is made to tie everything up, but a few glaring loose ends are left dangling.

The movie is not a patch on the original because the freshness and novelty of a brilliant take on the whole concept of wanton sexual behaviour interwoven with a murder mystery cannot evoke the same reaction the second time round. David Morrissey as Dr. Michael Glass is unimpressive. One cannot sense the turmoil and anguish in his character which Michael Douglas portrayed so well in the first – Dr. Glass too has a chequered past like Douglas. The supporting cast has pitched in with a good performance and of course Stone is good but only as good as the movie lets her be. It’s a decent murder mystery in no way a successor to the first installment. You'd miss nothing if you gave it a miss. Catch the DVD perhaps and check if the sex scenes were as real and emphatic as the first.

And as promised the answers to my Dick'uns Q&A questions listed in my post below:
1. The 'Hole' Story.
2. They felt it wasn't long enough.
3. The 'Ups' and 'Downs' of life.
(It'll further understanding if you use hand gestures for 'Up' and 'Down' :)
4. Because he was an expert in penetrating strategic areas.
5. Because inflation was his biggest worry.
6. Because he was an expert on concrete erections.
7. The Coming of the Lord (no offense to our 'Isai bhaiyon'.)

Feel free to use them. These have never appeared anywhere before. Do quote me, if possible. But I think reading all of them at once, sort of reduces their appeal. Adios.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Cerebral Palsy