Yeah, there is a very bleak chance of them
</div>The Aussies have some players playing in the Premier league too.
<div>They have the height and physical advantage, so refree has to be sharp that they do not foul.India lacks international exposure but it will be good if they can beat Australia. It will be challenging.
Yes some of these were all for the best.Originally posted by: hindu4lyf
Great roles actors have turned down
Julia Roberts
She may have had 'Pretty Woman', but Julia Roberts could have cornered the romantic comedy market all by herself if she hadn't turned down the chance to star in 'Sleepless in Seattle', 'Shakespeare in Love' and 'While You Were Sleeping'. While her loss would eventually be Meg Ryan, Gwyneth Paltrow and Sandra Bullock's gain, it wasn't just romance films she was turning down ' she also decided to pass on erotic thriller 'Basic Instinct'.
The 1992 move made Sharon Stone a household name.
Bruce Willis
Romantic weepie 'Ghost' could have been slightly different if Bruce Willis had played the lead character. However, he wasn't sure about playing a ghost ' much to Patrick Swayze's delight.
Maybe realising his mistake, he would eventually play a member of the undead in the classic 'The Sixth Sense'.
David Schwimmer
'Friends' was still going strong at the tail end of the 90s, and those that weren't named Jennifer Aniston were still getting sent movie scripts. One called 'Men in Black' headed Schwimmer's way. The part was of J, the younger of the two lead agents. However, Schwimmer decided it wasn't for him, allowing Will Smith a chance to take not only the role but pretty much announce to the world that he was a genuine movie star.
Sir Sean Connery
The Scottish actor has made a few film choice errors ' most notably passing on the chance to be in two of the biggest blockbuster series in recent history.
While you can't now imagine anyone else playing Gandalf other than Sir Ian McKellen, Connery was in fact the first actor to be offered the role. However, the thought of filming three films back-to-back didn't appeal to Connery, nor did the fact that he didn't understand the script.
He also turned down the chance to play Morpheus in 'The Matrix' because he, yet again, couldn't get his head around the story.
Fearing another blockbuster oversight he decided to make 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'. The result? A superhero film that was not only a huge flop, but promptly saw him retire from acting.
Will Smith
Sir Sean Connery wasn't the only one to have been confused by 'The Matrix's script. Will Smith passed on the chance to play Neo ' a role that became an iconic one for Keanu Reeves.
Smith would later explain, "You know, 'The Matrix' is a difficult concept to pitch. In the pitch, I just didn't see it. I watched Keanu's performance ' and very rarely do I say this ' but I would have messed it up. I would have absolutely messed up 'The Matrix'. At that point I wasn't smart enough as an actor to let the movie be. Whereas Keanu was smart enough to just let it be. Let the movie and the director tell the story, and don't try and perform every moment."
Joaquin Phoenix
Before Joaquin Phoenix wowed critics in 'Gladiator', the actor was desperate to make his mark on the big screen following his accomplished performance in 'To Die For' years earlier.
While he rejected roles in teen horror films like 'Scream', he also passed on two iconic roles of the 90s.
He had a meeting with Paul Thomas Anderson to discuss playing the lead role in 'Boogie Nights'. While Anderson was impressed with Phoenix, the intense actor was unsure about playing a po*n star and ended up passing on the project ' much to Mark Wahlberg's eternal thanks.
There was also a chance for Phoenix to play Ed Norton's part in 'American History X'. But again, the subject matter proved too distasteful for him and he promptly rejected it.
Alec Baldwin
Alec Baldwin must curse under his breath at the mere mention of Harrison Ford. The '30 Rock' star was the first to play Tom Clancy's fictional CIA analyst Jack Ryan in the thriller 'The Hunt for Red October'. Reportedly fearing that Baldwin didn't have enough box office appeal to lead a potential James Bond-esque franchise the studio instead turned to Ford for the two Jack Ryan sequels.
And it was to get worse for Baldwin, who turned down the plum role of Dr Richard Kimble in the movie version of the hit 60s show 'The Fugitive' ' a role that eventually went to Ford!
Tom Hanks
Hank was offered the lead roles in 'Field of Dreams' and 'Shawshank Redemption', but eventually passed on the projects.
Both would have played up to Hank's everyman persona, but how different would 'Jerry Maguire' have been if Hanks had played the arrogant and unravelling sports agent?
We'll never know, as Cameron Crowe had to turn to his second choice instead after Hanks said no. It ended up being arguably Tom Cruise's greatest role.
Warren Beatty
Warren Beatty has made some great films, and some not so great ones ('Dick Tracy' anyone?). However, it's obvious he's not the greatest at picking scripts ' rejecting the chance to play Burt Reynolds' character in 'Boogie Nights' and James Caan's career comeback role in 'Misery'. He also turned down Robert Redford's part in 'The Sting' and the role of Gordon Gekko in 'Wall Street'.
Wait, there's more. Beatty also felt that the role of Bill in Quentin Tarantino's 'Kill Bill' wasn't for him
Yep India has great potential as soccer has not been fully explored in India yet. Once they take it up they can do well.Yeah, there is a very bleak chance of them
winning, but nothing wrong in standing up and supporting them, is there? I will still support India😛
Elegy for Christina Taylor Green - 9/11/01 to 1/8/11Born on September 11, 2001, Christina Taylor Green died January 8, 2011, gunned down in a Tucson supermarket parking lot. Christina had just been elected to her school student council and was interested in politics, her family said. She wanted to meet her Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, and learn more about politics.
She did. She learned what no child should ever learn. She learned that politics in America, or rather, public life in America, has become a place fraught with violence.
Back in the campaign season, the violence was just words, clever phrases from media-savvy public speakers who said things like "don't retreat--reload!" We watched such public figures promote campaigns taking aim, with images of the cross hairs of a gun sight, at other public figures, one of whom was Gabrielle Giffords.
But now it's not just words. Words, as the good sheriff of Pima County Arizona told us, matter. "Vitriol has consequences," Sheriff Dupnik said.
Vitriol has consequence, and so does its opposite. The opposite of vitriol is love.
So, for the sake of Christina, and for other little girls and boys who might yet be interested enough in politics to wish to become public servants like Gabby Giffords or slain Judge John Roll, it's time to meet the vitriol with love.
Really. Love. It's time for us to get busy and start practicing love. And I don't mean sweet sentiment. I mean the hard work of love.
As a preacher, I could talk about the hard work of love by quoting a bible verse about loving the other as our self. I would also quote another preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr. who said "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." I believe that.
But the best way I know how to describe that love is as a mother. What we need in the public square right now, in our places of worship and places of learning, in our Tweets, blogs and Facebook posts and in our supermarket parking lots, is a kind of love that looks something like a mother's love.
The kind of love I'm talking about is tender, and it's fierce:
It means paying attention, knowing what time it is and what the weather's like out there.
It means naming danger when it threatens, and meeting it with savvy and with courage.
It means teaching the difference between right and wrong.It means being responsible for our words and our actions, and calling on others--like those public figures with their crosshairs--to take responsibility for their actions.
It means showing up, being present, caring, not expecting somebody else to handle it.
It means compassion, knowing that we are all in this together.
And of course it means getting your heart broken, which opens you to hold the pain as well as the beauty of being fully human.
So with our hearts broken open right now, I hope we can meet the challenge of these violent times with the power of love, fierce, tender love. We owe it to Christina.
Very sad indeed.Originally posted by: return_to_hades
This is truly heartbreaking
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-howard/elegy-for-a-9yearold_b_806509.html
More on Christina - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/christina-taylor-green_n_806314.html
It is ironic and tragic that a girl born on 09/11 the day of the worst act of terror against mankind, a girl considered a ray of hope was eventually gunned down in another act of terror. This time around, it was not outsiders, the murderer was one of us.
Mera pehla pehla pyar title song...
A few weeks ago I had the miserable experience of reading Twilight. A friend bought it for me and I took it with me to read on a long flight from Seattle to Houston. I knew it was going to be crappy, but I thought it would be a guilty pleasure kind of crappy - where you know it's bad but you still get enjoyment out of it. I actually managed to power through around 400 pages until I gave up and started reading Sky Mall. I've been seeing Twilight everywhere lately, especially with Vampire Teens II New Moon's release, so I thought I'd break down why chicks go apeshit for it.
First off, the author creates a main character which is an empty shell. Her appearance isn't described in detail; that way, any female can slip into it and easily fantasize about being this person. I read 400 pages of that book and barely had any idea of what the main character looked like; as far as I was concerned she was a giant Lego brick. Appearance aside, her personality is portrayed as insecure, fumbling, and awkward - a combination anyone who ever went through puberty can relate to. By creating this "empty shell," the character becomes less of a person and more of something a female reader can put on and wear. Because I forgot her name (I think it was Barbara or Brando or something like that), I'm going to refer to her as "Pants" from here on out.
So after a few chapters of listening to Pants whine about high school, sucking at volleyball, and being the center of attention, the second major character is introduced. Imagine everything women want in a man, then exaggerate it by ten thousand - and you've got Edward Cullen. The level of detail that the author goes into while describing Edward's appearance is remarkable. At one point while reading I started counting the number of times the author used the expression "Edward's perfect face," and it was far into the double digits. The author excruciatingly details his muscular pecs, clothing, hair, eye color - even his goddamn breath (I'm not joking).
Edward intensely listens to everything Pants has to say, even if she's bitching about she had diarrhea on Christmas or her preferred method for cutting a sandwich in half. As far as the reader is concerned, Edward cares about nothing in the world more than Pants. What the author has done is created a perfect male figure - a pale Greek statue which the reader can worship and in turn be worshipped by.
So what about men that like Twilight?
If you're male and you like Twilight, you're gay. I don't mean that in the derogatory sense, I mean it in the "you want to put your testicles against another man's testicles while gripping handfuls of chesthair" kind of way.
And the movie?
The movie is just the same uninspired crap shat out onto a film reel. If you like the taste of horse manure on your bologna sandwiches, you're probably gonna like it on your birthday cake as well. The same principle applies with Twilight.
Beyond that, it's just a romance novel with the occasional vampire teen drama bullshit peppered here and there. It doesn't really break any new ground in the realm of vampire fiction, other than portraying vampires as a family of uncomfortable retards who prance around the woods eating deer and bunny rabbits. There's lots of nervous lip-biting, tender kisses between Pants and Edward, and lengthy descriptions of every feature of Edward's body. Pants is a static character who never really progresses beyond being an insecure vampire fangirl who obsesses over Edward. Whether her character grows beyond that is unknown to me, I'd stopped reading by then and shifted my attention to an electric butt-massaging chair in Sky Mall.
comment:
p_commentcount