Spammy's Choice: Rachel Bilson

She's hot. And she plays a bitch in The OC. What more can a guy ask for?

Seven Days...

So I finally watched the wedding video/media catalogue which apparently included someone I was to check out. Hmm. I wonder if the palms of their hands itch or they sneeze or something when people are pimped in this fashion?

Now obviously I'm not going to post any findings here, but needless to say a video was never going to be that influential in any decision I made regarding going forward. My lunch guests (y'know, safety in numbers and all that) seemed impressed - and we know that's all that matters in these things. That's a joke.

It was still a bit odd though - and I fear that it'll be pretty difficult to approach the whole thing as objectively or at least as normally[1] as I'd like. But then perhaps one isn't expected to...

[1]Yeh yeh, I know what you're thinking - like I have a "normal" approach to women. Ha Ha. But you know what I mean.

Dinner for Twenty

Well Sunday came and went. Of course Mum didn't let me cook, but I managed to whip some cream and cut the watermelon... Which is more than what I usually do. I think everyone enjoyed themselves (feel free to comment if you did, guys) and the small fear I had regarding my folks getting along with the others was unfounded. Although it was a bit strange making the introduction.

Star of the show was Idris. The git. Entertainment of the day was The Tape, but then that deserves its very own blog entry...

Game: Outrun 2 (Demo)

Yes, it's just a demo (and one I paid for), but for your deposit of three quid you get the first three stages of Easy mode as well as four player Live! play.

It's a bit buggy, but it's still great. Perhaps a bit too good - it's difficult to imagine the full game being much better than this. But for now, it seems the demo will be taking a worthy slice of my gaming time.

Oh, and my GamerTag is spams if you're wondering.

Film: King Arthur

One of the good things about expecting a film to be under par is when you're pleasantly surprised that it isn't. This was one of those times. Reminded me much of Braveheart (but mostly cos of the location), the 126 minutes that the film lasted passed pretty quickly. Of course it had its flaws - its editing let it down and the makers decided to include some pretty redundant scenes. But don't let that stop you - it's worth watching just to see the "truth behind the myth" or whatever the tagline was.

Oh, and it has Keira in it.

It's Official: I Have a Personality

And it is that of a Supervisor, apparently. Now, I've done these Myers-Briggs Type Indicator tests before (I'm sure most have in some form or another), but as the BBC usually make these things more accessible to us common folk, I decided to give their take on it a go.

Personally I think that they're all a load of balls - there's no way that twenty, fifty or even a hundred questions can determine someone's personality; and that's if you accept that there are a fixed number of personalities into which you can pigeonhole people in the first place.

The test had four qualities each with two subtypes, and placed the person being tested in a single subtype per quality. The trouble is that the test doesn't allow you to lie somewhere in the middle - to be half-planner and half-spontaneous for example. This makes it way too coarse and where my result was a Supervisor, I reckon I'm more a mixture of that as well as it's neighbouring categories, and at some level all of the remaining ones. But what do I know - 90% of the people taking the test thought it was bang on. I think it's that's due to what I call The Horoscope Effect - one would see themselves in whatever was presented to them if it was written vaguely and positively enough. But hey - it's this ability of being able to relate to a variety of different personalities that makes us interesting.

But moving on... Discussing the subject with an online friend, I was surprised at how her results didn't match what I considered her personality to be. Her explanation for this was that it was impossible to determine one's "true" personality unless you knew them in a more traditional way. I disagreed.

My theory is that no one ever knows your "real" personality. Y'see, personality is defined in many dimensions, some not perceivable under what we consider to be "normal conditions". You can only get to see it via filters... Or in other words, a limited number of dimensions at a time. And in that manner, how you may consider someone via other means isn't necessarily an inaccurate, untrue or fake perception, rather a different aspect of the same subject. Think of an egg - and how it appears to be a circle if you view it from one end.

So what follows is that a person's personality is more than how they appear in real life. And more than how they appear online. And more than how they may appear to their parents, or to a significant other. Or at work - you get the picture. It's the sum of all these things that begins to describe what a guy or girl is really like. And paradoxically it's only when you realise this about a person - the fact that there's more to them than you (will prolly ever) know - that you really know them.

And that, dear reader, is why all personality tests suck.

You can take the BBC Personality Test thingy here.

Film: The Village

Typical up-down Shyamalan fare - which may not be a bad thing if you're into that kinda thing. Me, I'm not sure. I don't regret watching it (like I did Riddick, shudder), yet I don't recall actually enjoying it. Hmm.

And I still think that Unbreakable is the best of his four.

WLTM

Alright, so a friend of mine was checking out the wide range of online matrimonial sites currently available for us lucky singletons to check out. Not for any possibilities you understand (well none that he'd admit to anyway), but he likes to check them out every now and then to see what the "scene", as it were, was like. In this particular survey he found that not much had changed.

Firstly, it seemed that plagiarism was rife in the world of Internet Personal Ads. Not only was every candidate outgoing, they were also funny, intelligent and a really good friend - you know, someone you could rely on in times of need. A fair few also stated Islam/Hinduism/Sikhism/Etc "as their strength". "Hell", my friend declared, "I'd immediately snap up someone who admitted that they were insular, stubborn and preferred to watch Eastenders than going out for a meal - at least I'd know they were honest!". Yup, Internet personals have overtaken School Progress Reports as the de facto standard of identikit personal profiling.

Secondly, it seemed that the publicist that they all use (my friend reckons there can only be one of them - two, tops) may not have had the pleasure of a basic school education. He even suggested that English may not be their first language. A bit harsh (I mean it's not like his English is particularly fantastic) but on the other hand you gotta wonder how seriously you should regard an individual who a) uses text language, b) struggles to correctly place "there", "their" and "they're", c) can't be bothered to use a simple spellcheck or take a minute to proofread their profile before publishing, or d) uses the subject pronoun in "Tom and I" instead of the object in "Tom and me". Alright, perhaps the last one can be forgiven. But the point still stands. A little care, people - I mean there's an artistic display of personality and everything, but there's also laziness and a lack of basic decent presentation.

My friend also commented on the poor souls whose profiles were posted not by themselves, but instead by a relative - like the brother who tells us that he can't explain why his sister cant find a husband (you know, since she has a fantastic personality and is ok looking and everything). Little does he know she's been dating her current boyfriend for ages now and doesn't actually want interfering families discussing her lack of a love life online. Or perhaps it was the case that the brother/mother/whoever cant see past their rose tinted spectacles...

So no, he (my friend) wasn't impressed. Of course I had to take him to task (as I do) - he was hardly being fair after all. "They're not all like that, fool" I claimed, while showing him the plenty of normal, professional, genuinely funny yet classy girls (who even had pictures which of course we didn't look at seeing as we're good Muslim boys - and besides, it's not like cared what they look like) available on the site. So what exactly was wrong with them? Does the way in which you discovered a person really have that much of an effect on how you would consider them? I suggested that, if so, it was probably an issue he had rather than anyone he was investigating.

I explained that I had a friend who is due to marry someone she met online (although admittedly not via a matrimonial site) and that I knew a fair few normal people who considered it perfectly acceptable (although these all seem to be single women in their thirties. hmm). So what exactly was the problem, friend?

"You're just looking for an excuse not to proceed..." I accused. Personally, I think that he was scared of becoming "one of them" who, perhaps irrationally, are seen as desperate loners who cant get a partner in a more traditional manner (whatever that is nowadays - I mean is a personal ad any less clinical, romantic or random than an introduction? Perhaps not). Which is totally untrue of course - if anything these boys and girls are braver than my friend was - after all they took the next step and posted a profile rather than remain safe in the anonymity of being just a critical browser. They're the ones who put their neck on the line despite, in all probability, having the same irrational fear that my friend had. I explained to him that the facts that he was a) browsing and, it later transpired, b) considering signing up and posting his own profile, proved that there were people as normal as him (which in retrospect may not have been the best point to make) pursuing a relationship in this way. And of course that he didn't have to make it the exclusive manner in which he found a partner - this just happened to be another option which may or may not pay off dividends.

So yes, I convinced him (with very little effort to be honest) to take that leap and disregard his bogus fear and sign up. And he had his profile ready ("slim, funny, out-bloody-going") and had filled in all the other requirements and various other options that would make life easier for whomever did the searching. And he was about to press the submit button when he suddenly found the (grammatically incorrect and replete with spelling errors) profile of someone he knew... Which for some reason managed to reaffirm his original stance regarding the people who used these sites - possibly because this particular person was still single.

"Hmmm" he said, "Maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Yeh, perhaps ill hold off signing up right now..."

The OC Returns

But while it was gone (silly C4) it seems that One Tree Hill usurped its throne as leading teeny bopping drama. Is there room for two of these? I'm not sure. I do know which I prefer though... Hey, at least we get one and a half seasons back to back...

Film: The Chronicles Of Riddick

Well fourth time unlucky as they say. Okay, we all knew deep inside that it'd be crap, but that admiration for Pitch Black convinced me to watch in hope - maybe the critics missed something, maybe they didn't get the franchise. But no, they were spot on. It's pap. Zero continuity (something which may not bother you as it does me), a shabby plot, bad acting... Even Thandie Newton didn't score it any points.

Avoid like the plague.

Film: Dodgeball - A True Underdog Story

Well considering how much I had enjoyed the last two films, I was kinda afraid that I'd be pushing my luck expecting a third hit. But no, Dodgeball was good. A feeble plot didn't get in the way of the gags (which were the best I had experienced in a long time - think Farrelly Brothers). In fact the lowest point was when the actual dodgeball tournament itself started - but that was mercifully short anyway.

If you're looking for something that isn't an action packed special effects extravaganza, check it out.

Film: I, Robot

A great tribute to Asimov's stuff, even though it really only borrows the Three Rules. Almost a mystery thriller, but one that holds your hand throughout, making sure you dont have to, like, think. So instead, enjoy the visuals (and I don't mean Bridget, guffaw snort) and action. A warning though - it takes a bit to get started, so make sure you've been for a pee beforehand.

Oh, and does anyone remember what the Fourth Rule is?

Film: The Bourne Supremacy

More of the same, which is no bad thing. Matt Damon is still great in a role that almost seems was written for him. Of course, it'll prolly have the same amount of replay value as the first (ie none), but the initial viewing will leave you hanging for more (which hopefully we'll get in the final instalment of the trilogy).

So yeh, go watch.

Gimmie Some Worms

So how many friday nights at home does it take before you're officially termed socially inept? Bah. At least I can depend on my DVD player.

Smack My Bitch Up

He had us going for a while he was shaking off the nerves in the first round, but he did us proud in the end.

Congratulations Amir!

Men Are Disgusting

My evidence:

1) A day never passes where I don't spot a guy not washing his hands after using the toilet. Yet people call me paranoid for washing my hands after shaking hands? And what I find really amusing is that no one will admit to doing this.

2) A week never passes where I don't find pee on the toilet seat. Luckily I'm an expert at the Two Sheets Technique used to isolate bum from seat.

3) This one is nasty, so you may want to look away. Yesterday I found what can only be described as a sticky brown lumpy stain on the floor in front of one of the toilets. Yeeach. At the time of posting it is still there, although now having been stepped on its more spread out and less detectable. Double Yeeach. And there are people around here who walk around with no shoes...

New Music

Well not so new this time:

Chale Jaise Hawayein - Main Hoon Na
I've had to get this due to being force fed it by the Hussains the past couple of months. Damn the effects of familiarity. Still, a nice ditty that makes me bob my head like a maniac on the Tube. And it reminds me of Amrita, so it can't be all bad.

It's The Time To Disco - Kal Ho Na Ho
Every holiday needs a theme song, and for our recent trip to Bangladesh it's this. Not fantastic, but still brings a smile to my face when I remember the microbus journey home from one of BN1's events (I forget which one exactly) and the dancing at BN2's Guy Holid. However, it also reminds me of Ishaq's singing. Shudder.

You can check out my current playlist here.

Spammy's Choice: Amrita Rao

A regular piece exploring the person which I am currently obsessing over. At the moment, it's Amrita Rao:



http://www.stardust.co.in/images/stars/amritarao.jpg

Nobody likes a poser...

A few pictures (at the minute just BN1's Gaye Hulud) have been put up. You can get to them via the usual place. Normal web picture viewing rules apply.

Keep checking back to see when the rest are posted. If you're at all bothered, that is.

It cant be that easy... Can it?

So, I just got back from Bangladesh. Wonderful place - reminded me of Pakistan really, but possibly a tad poorer. Oh, and I couldn't understand what people were saying. And they were shorter. And darker. It was more expensive than Karachi too, which I found surprising. People here keep asking me "How were the floods?", and without intending on taking away from the severity of the situation there, to be totally honest if I hadn't had known there were floods before I left I prolly wouldn't have after returning either.

I also preferred Chittagong to Dhaka (which for me was actually Narayanganj). That was probably cos the latter was towards the end of a long holiday, as well as Chittagong having had both weddings so we were kept pretty busy with the celebrations there.

Did I say both weddings? Well, we all had always considered the possibility that Brother Number Two (BN2) would also get married, but it was still a strange and surprising event to witness. Brother Number One (BN1) had met his fiancé back in December and they've been in some form of contact for the eight months they had before their nuptial day. Which I find pretty reasonable for a modern day international arranged-cum-introduced marriage. They certainly seemed comfortable together (after the marriage of course. Tut tut).

BN2 met his fiancé a week before their Nikkah. She was the second of three which he had met.

OK, don't get me wrong - They're both fantastic girls. And I'm convinced they'll all be happy and take great pleasure in taking care of each other for the rest of their lives. But after hearing stories which point to how hard it is to find The One (bleurgh), or maintain a relationship, isn't there something unsettling about being able to turn around the foundations of a successful marriage in less than a week? There shouldn't be - but as much as we like to think otherwise, we're just not used to it.

Now, I've always claimed that its easy for one to get married if they really wanted to. And that if they weren't, this wasn't due to a bout of bad luck or social inadequacy or anything - it was more due to them not wanting it enough. But perhaps that's the point here; that people don't just want a marriage, they don't just want someone to take care of them and keep them company, but further want a best friend, a confidanté, a spouse as well - the latter isnt necessarily implied by the former. Can you recognise that in someone in a week? I'm not sure that you can. However, I'm not claiming that these things cant grow. Nah, in all likeliness they will with someone who you would spend that much time with (especially if all parties involved are as great as they are in these two cases).

But perhaps, for some of us, we need this to happen before we sign that dotted line? Not particularly practical, sure - I mean this may be time better spent building a relationship with someone concrete, someone definite. Hell, it may not even be reasonable - we're all pretty flexible when it comes to interacting with others who are too. But it could explain why some choose to make it so difficult for themselves - anything other than what we have planned for ourselves may feel like a compromise (is this settling for less? Woah, that's a whole other blog entry). And ironically, it's prolly these same people who would be better off focusing their efforts on a single person rather than other less than potential possibilities.

And so, Mother Dearest has become hardcore smitten on getting me married off "back home", citing the two examples I have had the good fortune to witness. Now I've never said I was closed to the idea - in fact I've always found it bizarre how some can so easily write off a whole country - but I must admit after my experiences in Bangladesh the idea has become an almost-preference.

And yet, despite what I've written above, not a complete one. Pfft.

Well here you have it...

Its like, totally my blog.

Well, Ive been meaning to start one of these things for a while now. I usually end up posting my random thoughts on either the ALMBs or Collective, but seeing as I dont have much time to browse the former, and am probably boring the latter, it seemed to me that a blog would be the perfect place to spout instead. That and the ability to author posts on my PDA. So sad, I know.

Like it says in the description this isnt really for public consumption - although Ill prolly be linking to various posts or articles here to save time repeating myself. Yes, its strange writing stuff whichll prolly go unread, but for me writing seems to help organise and clear my thoughts.

So anyway, thats enough justification from me. If you are just browsing, enjoy, and please feel free to comment. Its that button down there...

Bangladesh

1st August 2004 - London (LHR) to Dhaka (DAC)
21st August 2004 - Dhaka (DAC) to London (LHR)

Singapore, Bali and Malaysia

12th July 2003 - London (LHR) to Singapore (SIN)
14th July 2003 - Singapore (SIN) to Bali (DPS)
19th July 2003 - Bali (DPS) to Singapore (SIN)
21th July 2003 - Singapore to Johor Bahru, Malacca and Kuala Lumpur (by land over causeway)
25th July 2003 - Johor Bahru to Singapore
30th July 2003 - Singapore (SIN) to London (LHR) (originally 26th)

Bombay Dreams

Right, let’s get the important stuff out of the way. Priya or Rani? Hmmm. Tough question. Priya was the typical lead - smart, beautiful, sweet and fit fit FIT. On the other hand Rani (or at least her clone, see later) was slightly flabby (although I think that was a part of the story), but boy she could dance in a way that could make up for it. Oh, and they both outshone anyone else on the stage that night. Nope. Too hard – I would shakalaka with either of them.

Ok, now that particular question is out of the way I can get to the show itself. For those who do not already know Bombay Dreams is about Akaash (Raza Jaffrey) our typically youthful hero from the slum, yearning for what he tells us he was born to do – to become a Bollywood star, that is. Luckily for him, he meets the world famous director Madan (Dalip Tahil) in jail (where else?) who sees the "tingle" in Akaash and gives him the chance that he needs to achieve stardom. Of course, Madan has a beautiful daughter, Priya (Preeya Kalidas), who has an equal yearning to follow her father’s footsteps and become a world famous director. She, in turn, is engaged to be married to Vikram (Ramon Tikaram), the lawyer that says he wants to save the slum (that Akaash happens to come from) from being demolished to make way for a multiplex. This has all been brought about by JK (Raad Rawi), boo hiss etc, who by wild coincidence is the source of everything bad in Bombay including, in an amazing fit of irony, the coercion of directors into giving him their distribution rights. but hey, I am sure you saw that coming. Throw in a eunuch best friend (Sweetie - Raj Ghatak), a temptress (Rani - Sophiya Haque, played by her understudy last night) and a light hearted distraction in the form of a very Smita Smittenesque Kitty the gossip columnist (Shelly King), and you end up with a story that is a largely predictable (if you were not able to read between my lines), but all the same enjoyable, implementation of the love, conflict and drama that is standard Bollywood flare. The difference here, however, is that it is standard Bollywood flare on the stage.

Technically, the show is quite a mixed bag. Lighting was a bit dubious (I caught a few stray shadows more than once), while the sets were very effective in their simplicity. Having said that they did have something I have never seen on the stage before – an ever changing pool/fountain water piece largely put in, I assume, for the wet dancing scene. This made up for the inadequacies of the direct lighting by causing elaborate reflections to be cast on the set. I was particularly impressed by the appropriateness of its use as it would have been far too easy to over or even misuse it. I would like to say that this resistance to overuse visual gimmicks was a trend throughout, but I do feel that they may have misjudged the level of use of certain other mechanical devices. Costume was impressive, and it is commendable that the production team chose to remain authentic rather than take the easy route and caricature Indian/Western dress (and as an aside I was very impressed by the ability of some of the ensemble to dance in high heels).

Moving on to the script, I must admit I do not think Meera Syal spent much time in thinking up the story, cheesy lines or the clichéd gags. Having said that, it is arguable whether she had to or not – in the course of the show nobody ever pretends that this is anything more in this respect than what Bollywood usually is. What we end up with is a largely adequate plot, and for those of us that have seen more than one Indian movie more of a distraction than anything else.

Choreography was excellent. It can't have been easy for this particular aspect to have been translated from screen to stage without losing that Bollywood magic, but it was done and done well. The semi-original score was also very good and of standard theatrical fare albeit with a Bollywood twist - and even though you would expect the musical bites and covers from the classical Bollywood scores, it was still quite surprising how effective this fusion turned out to be. Lyrically the songs were ok - if there was ever an English song version of a Bollywood flick, I would expect the lyrics to be as cheesy and clichéd as this was. Cheesy and clichéd in a good way, mind.

Again, I am in two minds about the performance last night. Due to the physical nature of the show many of the songs were not sung live, which is only acceptable if all the performers mime them well enough. Unfortunately this was not the case, and even the leads were caught out a few times with their mouths shut or miscued. Our compensation for this was the excellent acting and dancing by all of the main cast (as you may have noticed I especially appreciated the Rani understudy), who all managed to keep it in top shape without having to rely on numerous takes to get it right unlike their true Bollywood counterparts have to. Jaffrey was charming, I fell in love with Kalidas, and was (almost) tempted by the Rani understudy. I hated Rawi with a passion, but luckily King was there to distract me with her extremely apt and funny overacting.

On the other hand, and this is my biggest gripe of the show, the main cast were almost let down by the ensemble, who at times missed their cues and timings and generally slightly tarnished the polish the rest of the show had. I am guessing the cause of this is that there is just not enough Asian talent out there to fill the demands placed by a show like this, but who knows - maybe this will change in the future? I certainly hope it does.

So, should you all go see it? Hmmm, well that's the second tough question I have faced in this little review of mine. If you are only going to watch one theatre production this year, I would advise you to consider something else and maybe choose something that would do justice to the format. If you are going to watch more than one or you have seen everything else on offer already, well then give it a shot. If you do decide to see it, do not expect something that will necessarily use theatre or the Bollywood theme to their full potential but instead expect something that makes a decent attempt to and on the whole suceeds in making them compliment and accentuate each other. This is a show that’s more than the sum of these two particular parts, and I can say that you will all find something here that you may never in either a standard Bollywood flick or theatre production. The original cast rotates pretty soon, so now is the ideal time to go.

3/5

Hmmm.. I wonder who they’re referring to when they sing "Shakalaka Baby"....

Originally posted as spammy (7382nd post) on the ALMBs.

Roma

1st March 2003 - Stansted (STN) to Rome (ROM)
4th March 2003 - Rome (ROM) to Stansted (STN)

Pakistan

15th August 2002 - London (LHR) to Karachi (KHI)
25th August 2002 - Karachi (KHI) to London (LHR)

Film: Bend It Like Beckham

First things first. Girls who play football are hot. There are no two ways about it. Don’t get me wrong - it isn’t hot in a "shorts and tee shirt" kinda way, it’s just that there is something about a girl who can kick a ball around.

Anyways, now that I got that out of the way I can get to the film. For those who don’t already know, Bend It Like Beckham is a film about Jess (Parminder Nagra), a young Asian girl about to take her A-Levels, who happens to be a fanatic about football. Due to prejudices and pressure from her parents to conform, this interest is on the whole restricted to a kick around in the park. This all changes, however, when Jules (Keira Knightly) spots her skill and convinces jess to sign up for the local girls’ team, The Hounslow Harriets. What ensues is a story largely about how Jess handles her parents inevitable objections (mainly by keeping them in the dark), with a good old fashioned love triangle thrown in for good measure.

Technically, the film has a "rough edges" feel to its editing and dubbing. This isn’t strange for a British film, especially the ones in this genre. This is no bad thing, in fact the film might have suffered if it received too much polish (how glamorous can you make Hounslow?), and in any case it had both the script and cast to make you see past this.

And what a script it is. Apart from being tremendously funny (are there any British Asian films that are not?) it really does mange to draw you into Hounslow and the Bhamra family, without using the usual emotional trickery that other films may use or getting you to relate to the subject matter (unless of course you happen to be a 18 year old girl playing semi-pro). On top of that, Asian viewers don’t get the patronising feeling that they may have felt when watching East Is East, while both the subject matter and the funnies are accessible by non-Asians too. Of course, the former will enjoy the film on a slightly different level to the latter, but on the whole the film is appreciated by all.

In terms of the topics covered, the film manages to tackle a wide variety of issues including sexism, racism, mixed relationships, arranged marriages, and even homophobia, but wisely avoids getting bogged down in the "solution" of any of them. Although this may seem a cheap and easy way out, it did stop the viewer from becoming overwhelmed by what the film way trying to tell us about the rigidness of Asian culture and indeed ourselves. Thus it came as a reflection of British Asian life, rather than a criticism or a lecture of how we should all live it, something that I feel has not been portrayed before.

The main cast did a great job. Parminder Nagra played the role of Jess perfectly, being a strong independent girl, whilst realising the importance of respecting her parents and culture, and eventually managing to find the balance that most young Asians strive for. Kiera Knightly uses her "wooden, but I’m pretty so it doesn’t matter" style of acting that she has used before. Of course it goes without saying that both girls, as well as the rest of the girls’ football team had a skill with the ball that put even me to shame (ahem). This is important as it adds to the overall realism of the film. Jonathan Rhys Meyers (Joe, the coach) portrays the love interest well, managing to be a hero while also respecting and accepting the problems Jess faces off the pitch. The fantastic lead roles do not stop the supporting cast from shining either, with Juliet Stevenson playing a fantastic Jules's mother. Oh, and make sure you keep your eye on Tony at the airport towards the end of the film.

The film is made complete with its soundtrack, avoiding taking the easy route and flooding it with popular Banghra. Instead, it uses tracks from Mel C and the like, reminding the viewer that this is a film set in Britain about a British Asian.

It seems that a lot of lessons have been learned from the past implementations of the whole British Asian genre, resulting in a new evolution that is so satisfying and rewarding you can’t help but praise it. It is both engrossing and believable, despite its story (which, lets face it, is less likely to occur than those of EIE and BOTB). There really isn’t much more to say than that, except that it’s much recommended, and you should all go watch it. Now.

4/5

Right. I'm off to find myself a girl who can play football....

Originally posted as shak (2332nd post) on the ALMBs.

Saudi for Hajj

15th February 2002 - London (LHR) to Riyadh (RUH)
3rd March 2002 - Riyadh (RUH) to London (LHR) (can't have been more than two weeks)

Prague

21st December 2001 - Stansted (STN) to Prague (PRG)
24th December 2001 - Prague (PRG) to Stansted (STN)

During Christmas - was snowing and lovely. Quite selfishly thankful it was before the flooding August the next year.

Canada

16th August 2001 - London (LHR) to Edmonton (YEG)
3rd September 2001 - Edmonton (YEG) to London (LHR)