House of Cards is an American political thriller drama series produced by Netflix, originally based upon a BBC series of the same name. The main premise of the show is set in present day Washington DC. It chronicles the political life and upheavals in corridors of power of the main protagonist of the series, Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey).  [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bwvd1_house-of-cards-season-2-political-promo-vo-hd_shortfilms[/embed] Frank Underwood, the main character, is without a shadow of doubt the life and force behind the show. He is equipped with a typical southern accent, sensibilities and mannerisms, cowboy-ish charm and a shrewd, cunning demeanour in his arsenal as he begins his journey in season one as an experienced democrat and House Majority Whip in Congress. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="603"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] He vows to take vengeance, after being passed over for the office of the secretary of state, on all of those who undermined him and thus his diabolical conquest begins. It is quite addictive and mesmerising, for the lack of a better word, to see Frank politicking and manoeuvring his way in the highest of echelons of power with such seamless ease and Machiavellian cunningness. One can’t help but to draw an outright parallel between his political strategies and the Machiavellian doctrine, as he is callously ruthless in his endeavours to satiate his thirst for more power in the most powerful city in the world, Washington. While keeping all the potential spoilers at bay, suffice it to say, he succeeds to a great degree in his cause. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="601"] Photo: AFP[/caption] [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bwv92_house-of-cards-season-2-francis-claire-promo-vo-hd_shortfilms[/embed] One of the trademarks of the show is when Frank, in between an on-going discussion or in a heated argument with another character in an episode, breaks ‘his character’ and addresses the audience of the show directly. Some of the greatest ‘one liners’ and dialogues are unarguably from these instances. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="602"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bxm8s_house-of-cards-supercut-the-best-of-kevin-spacey-s-frank-underwood_videogames[/embed] They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This might hold ground in this case as it gives us a brief insight and a peek inside in what goes on behind closed doors of a fictional made up congress of the US and its different political institutions. While this show is a work of fiction, some story arches are loosely based on real life events in US history. Kevin Spacey in his role in playing Frank Underwood is par excellence. He has received widespread critical acclaim for the portrayal of this conniving man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants and has his eyes firmly set towards the oval office, the highest accomplishment he could achieve if he’s successful in his ambitions. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="602"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] My favourite season has to be the second one. For starters, the first episode sets the stage perfectly for the rest of the episodes to come and there’s a big ‘what just happened’ moment at the end of the episode. Other than that, as a whole, the second season carries some interesting themes and food for thought to ponder over such as journalistic integrity and adventurism, and the role of the big brother – the security apparatus and agencies of US. But again, the highlight of it all is seeing Frank starting off as the second most powerful man in the world (spoiler), as the newly elected vice president. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19b5p1_house-of-cards-netflix-season-2-official-trailer_tv[/embed] I love his quirky remark, when he’s about take oath for the office and he breaks character again and says

“One heartbeat away from the presidency and not a single vote cast in my name. Democracy is so overrated…”

On Monday, March 31 ‘How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM)’ aired its series finale, and boy was it an emotional moment for all of us. This means that no more of Lily, Marshall, Barney, Robin and Ted having a drink at MacLaren’s Pub, no more of Barney’s flirt spree, no more of Ted’s sometimes exciting, sometimes painfully boring quest for true love and no more of anything legen…wait for it…dary. Unfortunately, the finale didn’t pan out as per my expectations. It was an ‘okay-ish’ end to what truly was a great show. It didn’t quite feel like ‘How I Met Your Mother’ but rather (spoiler alert) ‘How My Kids Helped Me Get Back With Robin’. But all that aside, let’s just talk about the show’s theme, the gusto and the magical affect HIMYM had over so many people for so many years. For me, like a lot of other people, the show holds sentimental value. I have been an avid follower of Lost, Two and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, House of Cards, Homeland, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men and many more. But when HIMYM aired its final episode, it was a sad and hard goodbye. Here are the top nine moments from the show that I will remember forever: 1) Ted and Robin Break-up: You may call me a romantic of sorts, but all of us thought Robin was going to be the one to stand with Ted on the aisle, but I guess it was just not meant to be. In a way, it’s what kept the series interesting – will they get back together or will they not, was a question each of pondered over endlessly.    They just couldn’t ignore their feelings for each other throughout the rest of the series, even when Ted was moving to Chicago or during Barney and Robin’s wedding week. And even after showing that Ted had finally found the mother, they came back to Robin being the one in the end. In a way, they showed that even though the mother was someone else, Ted’s true love had always been Robin. 2) The legendary ‘slap bet’: As we all know, the slap bet started when Robin refused to go to the mall and upon assumption, Marshall thought it was because Robin got married in a mall in Canada whereas Barney is of the view that Robin did pornography in past. Later, Robin reveals to Ted that she indeed did get married, which Ted tells the gang. Hence, Barney lost the bet and Marshall was then allowed to slap Barney. But then, Marshall goes to a law library, finds out Robin never got married, tells Lily about the findings who obviously tells the gang since she can’t keep a secret, he gets slapped thrice by Barney as punishment. The whole scenario is hilarious. This particular episode introduced us to Robin’s history of being ‘Robin Sparkles’, the 80s teenage pop-sensation of Canada.   Soon enough, Barney finds a video of Robin, believing he’s found the Holy Grail, that he believed to be pornography starring Robin, he slaps Marshall claiming to be the winner of the bet. Later when Robin finds out about the bet and corrects the gang that it is not, in fact, porn but a music video of her song ‘Let’s Go To the Mall’ from the time she was a pop singer, the Slap Bet Commissioner, Lily, rewards Marshall five slaps to be delivered over eternity to Barney as he did not win the bet and slapped Marshall prematurely. Anyone who is a big HIMYM fan would agree that the episodes where Barney gets slapped by Marshall are the most entertaining episodes of the series. The unexpected slap keeps Barney anxious throughout – the delivery is just pure entertainment. 3) Girls versus Suits: This was probably the most legendary episode of HIMYM. We heard terms like ‘suit up’ from Barney time and again but never knew how much he actually loved suits. Well, this episode clearly showed us that he adored them and would do anything for them. The plot revolves around Barney trying to impress a girl who hates men in suits. And since Barney loves a challenge, he decided to give up his suits for this bartender-girl. Unfortunately, he realises that he can’t live without his precious suits. She finds his closet full of suits and asks him to choose between her or the suits. Obviously, Barney chose the suits. Barney and the rest of the gang break into a song, all wearing suits, towards the end of the episode called ‘Nothing Suits Me Like A Suit’. [embed width="620"]http://vimeo.com/32226815[/embed] 4) Interventions: Whenever the gang saw one of their friends in need of help or advice, they would hold an intervention. It was first introduced in the episode ‘Intervention’ where they held it to call their friend Stuart out on his drinking problem. The most epic interventions were held when Ted was madly in love with a married woman and the other, when he wanted to marry Stella, who left him at the altar. When Barney was moving in with Quinn too soon in their relationship and when Robin was developing feelings for Barney while he was in a relationship with Quinn, which was called the ‘Quin-tervention’. 5) Doppelgangers: The ‘doppelgangers’ were the look-alikes that the gang came across during the show. They included lesbian Robin, moustache Marshall, stripper Lily, Mexican wrestler Ted and last to be found, fertility doctor Barney. My favourite was stripper Lily! The doppelgangers played an important role in the show. Marshall and Lily decided that they would only consider having a baby if they found Barney’s doppelganger, which they clearly did, much to their surprise and hilarity. 6) The Playbook: How does Barney do it? How can a man have such an impressive record? Well, this was a mystery to all HIMYM fans until ‘The Playbook’ was finally revealed in season five, which was probably the greatest episode ever.                               It provided detailed information on the tricks and trades of hitting on girls. In later episodes, this Holy Grail remained a critical aspect of Barney’s life and protecting its sanctity was important for him. (Spoiler alert) In the finale, it is revealed that Barney re-writes the playbook after his divorce from Robin and continues being a womaniser. 7) The Final Page: The way the entire episode revolved around Barney’s final act of ‘The Playbook’ called ‘The Robin’ was truly a jaw-dropping yet awe moment.     This episode showed that Ted had moved on and had given Barney his blessing to propose to Robin. And the way Barney carried out his proposal was just as awesome as he was. Barney knew that after the way things ended previously between him and Robin, he had to put in a lot of effort to persuade Robin to marry him, and that is exactly what he did. It sealed Robin and Barney’s fate. For a while at least. 8) The mother revealed: When the fans started becoming impatient about who the mother was going to be, and all the crazy theories started to erupt about the mother, they finally revealed who the mother is. She came in towards the end of season eight with the words,

“Two tickets to Far Hampton please”

As per the Greek mythos, Helen of Troy was the face that launched a thousand ships. By the same token, collectively, two of the most popular drama series Game of Thrones and House of Cards have created a plethora of die-hard fans, countless memes and memorable one-liners from the two drama series.  If one was to find a singular commonality between the two drama series, it will be the pursuit of seeking absolute power. While, House of Cards frequently chronicles and portrays the journey of its main character, Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey), in the corridors of power in Washington DC ,  Game of Thrones, on the other hand, has a vast fictitious world of Westeros built around it, coupled with an expansive array of fictional characters representing different Nobel houses (Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Targaryen, among the rest). These houses are under the kingdom and fiefdom of lords who are either loyal to the King (from the ruling house, Baratheon) or at odds with them. The Golden Globes have been kind to Game of Throne in its first season in 2011. It was nominated for the Best Television Drama Series in 2012 and won a Golden Globe for the Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, due to Peter Dinklage’s outstanding performance as Tyrion Lannister. The team of House of Cards, on the other hand, has been unlucky in its endeavour to get hold of the coveted award in the same category. However, it does have the distinction of winning the Golden Globe award for Best Actress in a Television Drama Series (Robin Wright). It was a landmark in itself and also unprecedented because it was the first of its kind, for an online-only (Netflix Original Programming) web television series to have won a mainstream award like the Golden Globes. The next Golden Globe awards will be taking place on January 11, 2015. Both the aforementioned series are nominated under the category of Best Television Drama Series. It is hard for me to remain impartial and neutral seeing as, collectively, these two shows are amongst the best quality drama series currently out there. From the production values to the richness of characters, from a mythical albeit convincing world of ancient Westeros to the politically shrewd atmosphere of Washington DC, both drama series have their equal share of strengths in their own right. However, I think Game of Thrones will, once again, take the sought-after award over House of Cards, for the following reasons: Storyline (Singular versus Multipronged)  The predominant reason may lie in their default story structure and narrative approach. Game of Thrones portrays simultaneous story arches following the rise and fall of different houses. It gives multiple points of views. Additionally, highs such as the Purple Wedding and, frequent but saddening, lows which are in abundance for example, the Red Wedding, keep the audience ripe with anticipation. Compared to House of Cards, Game of Thrones is much more visceral, organic and explicit in more ways than one. The former, on the other hand, is understated, subtle in its plotlines, it takes its due time to build up and set the momentum leading up to any big event, which is not a bad thing seeing as it is a political-thriller, and that’s how politics works – slowly. Whereas in the latter, in each episode you are forced to remain on the edge of your seat while you are constantly reminded that, in accordance with Murphy’s Law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Perennial plot twists and the abrupt killing of central characters among other things is what makes Game of Thrones such an addictive, albeit emotionally exhausting, watch. Rich characters or a lack thereof It seems like the entire weight of the House of Cards is anchored on the shoulders of its main protagonist, Spacey. While he is most definitely outstanding in his role as Underwood, this aspect does give the series a one-man show feel. And in my opinion, apart from Wright, the other characters, even the major ones, don’t have that oomph or wow factor. Moreover, politicking nuances in the show, especially with all the American-only political jargon, can sometimes become a tad superfluous and makes it difficult to keep track of what exactly is going on. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] On the other hand, Game of Thrones has hosts of excellent performers – Dinklage, Lena Heady (Cersei Lannister), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Jaime Lannister), Emilia Clarke (Daenerys Targaryen), Maisie Williams (Arya Stark), Kit Harington (Jon Snow),  and Sophie Turner (Sansa Stark) to name some. Each brings to the table performances that can hold their own. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Source: Vanity Fair[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Source: Vanity Fair[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Source: Vanity Fair[/caption] David versus Goliath Although both shows are par-excellence, Game of Thrones is a franchise. It is not just a TV series, but a fictional best-selling book series penned by George R R Martin and also a video game series. House of Cards doesn’t carry the same influence or the fan base as the former does. But we all know the story of David and Goliath so we can’t overrule it. House of Cards may just turn out to be the dark horse. House of Thrones? On a lighter note, has anyone ever imagined a show that combined the grandeur of the Game of Thrones and the southern mannerisms of Underwood? I have and it would be epic! I am now hoping that some God-sent director out there reads this post and takes the hint. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="540"] Photo: Pinterest[/caption] Snapping back to reality, I would like to say that this January 11^th I will be rooting for Game of Thrones, which show will you be rooting for?

There is an obsession with TV series these days, particularly amongst the youth. New seasons are being awaited with much anticipation, especially popular ones like Suits, House of Cards, Scandal and, of course, Game of Thrones. You would find trailers of upcoming seasons on your newsfeed and much discussion on the storyline, quotes and characters shown so far, along with predictions of what might happen next. Quizzes such as “which character of a particular series are you”, and the likes, are common sight. [fbvideo link=" https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152715877082734&video_source=pages_finch_trailer"][/fbvideo] The euphoria grips everyone. As for me, my most favourite TV series thus far is Game of Thrones (GOT). While initially I had to be very patient with the graphic content of the show (as there is much violence) and its confusing storyline (as there are a lot of characters and kingdoms), eventually I was able to make sense of it. And once that happened, I fell in love with it. GOT has it all: drama, suspense, perfect locations, colourful costumes, northern accents, dragons and a lot more. There are some very likeable characters – like the Starks – and some popularly evil ones too – like the Lannisters, Peter Bailesh, Theon Greyjoy, Melisandre and Ramsay Bolton to name a few. But the one character which I believe is the life of the show is Tyrion Lannister. Those who see the show would perhaps agree with me. He is my most favourite character, apart from the noble Starks and Daenery Targaryen, of course. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500"] Source: Imgur[/caption] Though most Lannisters are portrayed negatively, Tyrion is different. He is practical and knows how to achieve his targets and while he isn’t noble per se, he is a man of conscience nonetheless. This was highlighted when he made a special saddle for the injured Bran Stark, saying

“I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards and broken things”.

“A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you’ll know the debt is paid.”

“I wish I was the monster you think I am. I wish I had enough poison for the whole pack of you. I would gladly give my life to watch you swallow it”.

“I have a realistic grasp of my own strengths and weaknesses. My mind is my weapon. My brother has his sword, King Robert has his war-hammer, and I have my mind… and a mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge. That’s why I read so much, Jon Snow”.

“Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armour, and it can never be used to hurt you”.

“Once you’ve accepted your flaws, no one can use them against you.”

A match that both teams were trying their level best to lose, Pakistan failed to shoot themselves in the foot for a change and managed to beat the might of Zimbabwe. The day was set for Shahid Afridi to shine on his 35^th birthday. Hey, if Meera is still 25, why can’t Afridi be 35? I am still 16 by the way. Afridi’s age is a great metaphor for the entire country; it is stuck in reverse. The day started with news that Rahat Fateh Ali Khan was going to play for the team, sending the entire nation (or just me actually) in a frenzy wondering why he was being picked for to play. Maybe, it was just Nasir Jamshed but the fact that he looks exactly like Rahat Fateh Ali confused the selectors. Another selection decision announced by Misbahul Haq at the toss was that Younus Khan was not playing, leading to everyone dancing on Rahat Fateh Ali Khan songs. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h55uq[/embed] Even Misbah could not hide his snicker while saying “unfortunately”. Rumour has it that he laughed for 10 straight minutes after going back to the dressing room. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="498"] Photo: Shehzad Ghias[/caption] The day started wonderfully for Jamshed, who got his first run in a World Cup ever. However, that was to be his last run in the match, and hopefully ever. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="499"] Photo: Shehzad Ghias[/caption] You have to admire Jamshed’s precision though; he managed to pick the only fielder on the leg side with his shot. Things only got worse when Ahmad Shahzad joined him in solidarity in the dressing room. Both Shahzad and Afridi got out as if they had plans to take birthday selfies in the dressing room. Pakistan cricket team was playing as if they were paying a tribute to the Netflix House of Cards series by falling like one. Misbah demonstrated why he is known as ‘Tuk Tuk’ by having a worse strike rate than storm troopers. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="498"] Photo: Shehzad Ghias[/caption] At one point, Ramiz Raja was sitting in the commentary box, sympathising the Hawk-eye because it showed no shots played. Many spectators had forgotten what a boundary looked like. The Zimbabwe bowler Tendai Chatara was particularly bowling well, leading many to wonder why Cheetara left Thundercats in the first place to join the Zimbabwe cricket team. The experience was only made worse by constant ads in the middle with a boy exclaiming,

“Dekho, kitna acha khel raha hai Misbah” (Look, how well Misbah is playing!)

“Abhay Umar, ye bachay humay nahin jantay. Aao inko haratay hein aur batate hay hum kaun hay!” (Umar, these kids don’t know us. Let’s beat them and show them who we are!)

“Boom Boom runs ko bhula do”

While the first season of House of Cards was about climbing and ascending the corridors of power and nullifying the enemies which Frank Underwood possessed, the second season was action-packed with simultaneous sub-plots reaching their logical conclusion. (Spoiler Alert) The third season, however, is all about endurance – now that Frank Underwood is the president of the United States, ultimately, he has managed to bring his dream of wielding absolute power to fruition, and he now wants to leave a legacy. Any other man would have been honoured just to serve his people in the highest office known to man, but as we all know, Frank is no ordinary man. He loathes the idea of being a one-term president or as he likes to put it “The Placeholder President”. [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ej1u4_house-of-cards-season-3-official-trailer_tv[/embed] The third season predominately focuses upon the personal relationship of the First Couple – Frank and Claire Underwood. Claire isn’t content on having her role restricted to only the First Lady. She wants to be her own woman, and for that, she fiercely lobbies and fights to become US’s ambassador to the United Nation. After failing to get a confirmation by a Senate Committee, she urges Frank to use his executive powers to make her the ambassador – a move that further deteriorates their already complicated relationship. Nonetheless, he succumbs and appoints her as the US ambassador which draws major criticism from the public and political opponents. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="504"] Photo: House of Cards Facebook page[/caption] In further episodes, as the tension in the Middle Eastern region heightens, Frank finds himself cornered by his arch rival, Viktor Petrov (Lars Mikkelsen), the president of Russia who will remind the audience of Vladimir Putin, if not in looks at least in sheer mannerisms and political strategy. Unarguably, some of the highpoints of the third season are when Frank is hosting and entertaining him during his visit to Washington DC or when Frank is in Russia carving out a power deal with his counterpart. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="504"] Photo: Netflix[/caption]

Ever since House of Cards (HoC) season three was released, I have been trying to create a list on how HoC would turn out if it were based on Pakistani politicians and, finally, my efforts have come to fruition. And to my surprise, the list has turned out to be more interesting than what I had expected. The main reason why I wanted to map HoC characters on Pakistani political celebrities is because of the grim and gores both American and Pakistani playfields of politics share. Also, I was inspired to make this because of the trials and tribulations innocent people face due to the filthy tactics and political manoeuvre done by the powers that be. However, the list below is just my personal opinion (and predictions) and it might not reflect the true state of affairs. 1) Peter Russo versus Dr Imran Farooq This seems pretty obvious. Both share a dreadful storyline of a man who was used and then dumped on the way. While we can accuse Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) to be the Frank Underwood in this scenario, the fact remains that people are used as pawns by political maestros who do not flinch even for a second before ruthlessly disposing them off. And this was why I felt that Mr Farooq and Peter Rosso share the same role. 2) Jackie Sharp versus Marvi Memon For both these characters, loyalty remains subjective to their own interests. While we see Jackie Sharp supporting Frank Underwood in becoming the next president of the United States (in season two), we also see her dark side when she throws Frank under the bus by supporting the opposition and later on leaving her presidential campaign to support Heather Dunbar – Frank’s rival. Similarly, in case of Marvi Memon, we have seen over the years how her stance has changed from her days at the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) to her short adventure with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and then her latest shift to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). While some may argue that PML-Q and PML-N are two different poles altogether in their treads of politics, Memon has the capacity to negotiate her way through any agenda – just like Sharp. 3) Zoe Barnes versus Hamid Mir Perhaps the only difference between the two of them is that Zoe Barnes wasn’t as lucky as Hamid Mir when she was attacked. Journalists fall prey to political motives, and the case with Barnes and Mir highlight that, irrespective of whether you are in Pakistan or the United States. 4) Raymond Tusk versus Malik Riaz

“Politics and business are intervened” – Raymond Tusk (season two).

Ant-Man is an American superhero film, produced by Marvel studios. Based upon a comic character with the same name, Ant-Man, the movie marks the conclusion of Marvel’s Phase Two of the Marvel cinematic universe.  [embed width="620"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20620l_ant-man-movie-official-teaser-trailer-2015_shortfilms[/embed] Paul Rudd (Scott Lang) is starring as the lead role and is projected as a skilled albeit charming and street smart thief/ex-con who is seen helping his mentor cum friend, Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). Dr Pym is the one who invented the technological wonder that is the “shrinking suit”. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] If you’re expecting Ant-Man to present the same pomp and show as other Marvel movies in the Marvel cinematic world, such as the Iron Man trilogy or the Avengers series, then you’ll definitely walk out of the cinemas disappointed. Ant-Man takes a different and subtle route. Instead of going all guns blazing and exhibiting excessive over the top CGI visuals, it builds scenes which are equally comedic and entertaining while cleverly using CGI visuals to augment the effect of what it is literally like to be minuscule. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="590"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] One thing that can be ascertained after watching Ant-Man is that while it fits in the larger scheme of things with context to parallel storylines (Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Avengers, etc.) presented in the Marvel Universe as a whole, on its own, Ant-Man delivers an enjoyable movie experience for the audience. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Coming back to the action scenes in the movie, they’re great and well-thought out. Most of the action sequences that take place during the entirety of the movie will be from Ant-Man’s miniature perspective and view. They’ve innovatively shown a fight scene inside a briefcase (yes, a briefcase) that ingeniously includes iPhone-based jokes in the middle of it. It’s these little nuances and attention to detail that make this particular movie an absolute joy and delight to watch. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="593"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Coming to the antagonist, Corey Stoll (House of Cards, The Strain) plays the role of Daren Cross and his alter ego, ‘Yellow Jacket’, who intends to use Pym’s suit for military applications. As is the case with all megalomaniacs who lust for more untapped and unrestrained power, Daren Cross is no different. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] In all honestly, after seeing his performance in House of Cards, one would expect him to knock this role out of the ball park. Unfortunately, he delivers a bland, flaccid, and a standardised run of the mill performance as one would expect from a passable villain. It’s a pity that his acting skills weren’t fully realised and utilised. In addition, this movie also works as a comedic heist cum science fiction movie that somehow fits seamlessly in the grander cinematic experience that Marvel has to offer. Kudos to the director, Peyton Reed, who ensured that all these aspects work in tandem, without the movie falling apart. The protagonist of the movie truly steals the show. Rudd in his rendition as Ant-Man delivers a memorable performance, which can be compared to the likes of how Robert Downey Jr truly owned the character of Iron Man and delivered a persona that was much attuned with his real self. Similarly, Scott Lang is an offshoot of Rudd’s own personality which he has infused in his role as the world’s tiniest superhero. His comedic timing and on the spot references to other heroes in the Marvel universe is highly entertaining to watch. The supporting cast is fairly adequate, especially Michael Peña and Evangeline Lilly. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="599"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] It’s not often that movies which are not mainstream get to see the light of the day, and when they are produced and directed, either they’re panned by critics or are absolute disasters. Props to Marvel for taking a risk and not playing it ‘safe’ by producing just another movie with familiar heroes we’ve all grown accustomed to. Ant-Man is funny, enjoyable and its visual effects are an absolute pleasure to watch. Suffice to say,

“Good things do come in small/ant-sized packages.”

The idea for Netflix came to its co-founder, former math teacher turned businessperson, Reed Hastings, when he ended up paying late fines for a movie rental totalling twice the cost of the actual DVD. Here, Netflix began life some 18 years ago as an online DVD rental mail-order service that offered its users some unheard of conveniences. Netflix soon skyrocketed in popularity, leaving its brick and mortar competitor, Blockbuster, looking like a ghost town, and eventually filing for bankruptcy. Today, Netflix is the go-to internet TV service, especially when it comes to streaming TV shows and movies. Netflix also produces original content, including shows such as House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marvel’s Daredevil and Marvel’s Jessica Jones. Understandably, the announcement from the entertainment juggernaut that it would be entering 130 new markets, including Pakistan, has been met with excitement. Yes, now we too can Netflix and chill… though when our parents catch us (because let’s face it… how many single Pakistanis live alone?), it will be more like Netflix and chal… possibly with a few jootay (shoes) flying at us. Of course, there has been considerable backlash to the excitement on social media, because like it or not, cynicism is something of an ingrained Pakistani trait. (On a side note, why do we backlash on everything? It seems that the best way to hit a nerve on Twitter or Facebook in Pakistan is to say something bitter and pessimistic, even if it has little foundation in reality.) Here are some of the concerns making waves: 1. ROFLMAO! No one likes to pay for anything in Pakistan, so why would they pay for Netflix? For between $7.99 and $12 a month, you have unlimited access to all the TV shows and movies Netflix has on offer in Pakistan, free to watch on any device you see fit. To put things in perspective, a movie ticket costs $6 to $10 locally. As the packed theatres and giant box office grosses reveal, people are willing to pay. Yes, if we can shell out enough for Jawani Phir Nahi Ani to gross nearly 40 crores, then we will pay for anything to pass the time. On a similar note, after taxes, most starting packages on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cost around $10. Meanwhile, your TV bill is between $3 and $5. So it isn’t extraordinary for Pakistanis to pay for entertainment. 2. Netflix is only for the rich. Our people can’t afford it. Look, Mr Self-righteous, the poor suffer from many issues in the country, but Netflix is the least of their problems. Those who can go to the cinema, pay for their internet connections, afford a TV cable bill, and own smart devices, aren’t going to be horrified by a Netflix bill. 3. Why won’t Pakistanis just use torrents? They are just pretending to be excited by Netflix. For the same reason Pakistanis flocked to theatres for The Force Awakens rather than resort to piracy. Of course, torrenting will still continue, as it has across the world, but using Netflix has some advantages. For one, to watch the full season of a TV show on full HD through Netflix, you don’t have to set aside 50GB of hard disk space as you download for days – you can just stream when necessary. The delivery of satisfaction is immediate. On the other hand, unlike torrents, pirated streaming sources are unreliable and infected with some nasty malware. What’s more is that Netflix is not only available on your smartphone and tablet, but is integrated into home theatres such as Xbox One and PlayStation 4. Using other means to stream a movie on to your next-gen console can be frustrating. For the other, not everything on the Netflix catalogue can be found in the internet’s dark underbelly. Ultimately, it is all about ease of use for a fee that doesn’t break the bank. No, not all of Netflix’s content will be available in Pakistan, but Jack Sparrow isn’t going anywhere either. What I am most excited about is Netflix working with producers in Pakistan to host some amazing local content. The sort of partnership hopefully free from the saas bahu nonsense we see on our TV sets. 4. LOL! How will Netflix work when Pakistani ISPs are so terrible!? While ISPs in Pakistan are still quite substandard, connectivity in Pakistan has improved by leaps and bounds over the years. Look, if you can watch a YouTube video or play your Xbox or PlayStation games online, then you can use Netflix. I do expect the service to face some teething issues, especially during its first few months, but I’d be surprised if it isn’t smooth sailing from then on. You can also expect ISPs and 3G/4G networks to provide special Netflix packages as they have with other services. 5. LOL! How will Netflix work when Pakistani credit cards are so terrible!? Again, perhaps true a decade ago, but the system has improved by leaps and bounds. While I still run into problems from time to time, I usually have no issues using the debit card versions of Visa or MasterCard to pay eBay, Steam, Amazon, or even Google. If you have a card with a major credit card logo, you should be okay. 6. The government of Pakistan will ban Netflix just like it has YouTube *snicker* You do realise that YouTube is a video sharing platform that features user created content, and Netflix is a digital TV service, right? The only similarity is that they share a medium of delivery. I don’t think Netflix will be hosting terrorist propaganda videos, or clips from amateur anti-Muslim filmmakers anytime soon. You can expect Netflix to work very closely with the government of Pakistan, just like other TV channels. The only real potential issue of conflict is over the issue of censorship. So far, the online streaming service has said its content won’t be censored. 7. Our youth should focus on being productive instead of wasting their time with Netflix! This comes courtesy of the uncle productively using his time with mind-numbing political talk shows from 5- 11pm every day of the week. Our people need more, not less entertainment.

While the first three seasons of the House of Cards were all about Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) consolidating power, and his reign in office as the President of the United States of America, coupled with his ascension to the all-powerful office of the most powerful man on earth, the fourth season is all about survival; literally and figuratively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTzycsqxYJ0 This time around though, the fight is closer to home. He is not fending off political enemies and rivals that may seem far away but on this occasion the enemy lying in wait is as ubiquitous and pervasive as it can be; yup, it is none other than his equally Machiavellian and unscrupulous wife, and First Lady, Claire Underwood (Robin Wright). She is proving to be his main contender in the political arena in more ways than one but in a covert and hushed up capacity. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] While season two and three will seem, to some, as quaint and mellow in comparison to the explosive nature of season one, season four is in essence as volatile, fluid and fast paced as the first season, if not more so. The preceding season (season three) was restrained and controlled to a degree of getting perceptibly boring; a pity because, audiences expected more from this critically acclaimed political drama cum thriller series. Fortunately, for the show’s fan base and casual viewers alike, House of Cards has come back with full force and I guess fourth time is the charm. Some of the quintessential plot lines that will be touched upon in the upcoming fourth season’s thirteen episodes are the presidential election campaign, vice presidential democratic convention, tensions with the Russians due to oil drilling rights, tackling a new and emerging terror threat in the shape of ICO (inspired by ISIS), using an online search tool/website (Pollyhop) for political leverage and mileage, president’s deteriorating health (more on that later) and ensuing estrangement, that seems to grow wider with time, between the Underwoods. The ever so engaging fourth-wall-breaking bits of wisdom, acumen and insight that we’ve grown accustomed to throughout the series are though present but in a lesser degree. To remind again, this is when the principal character Frank Underwood breaks the character he’s playing in the series and addresses the audiences directly. There are some roller coaster moments in this season as well, the highlight of which (spoiler alert) is the president getting shot and having to undergo a liver transplant, coupled with his secret service bodyguard cum confidant Edward Meechum (Nathan Darrow) taking a bullet for the president. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] Apart from old recurring characters, there are some new additions in this season as well. Especially those that garner a second look include the ailing mother of Claire Underwood, Elizabeth Hale (Ellen Burstyn), Leann Harvey (Neve Campbell) who is a shrewd but brilliant political consultant and lastly an adversary equally savvy as Frank in terms of ambition and demeanour, who sets to topple the president in the upcoming election to take his place, Will Conway (Joel Kinnaman). These aforementioned actors are a welcome addition in an already gleaming and brilliant ensemble cast. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="579"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] The show, made evident from the finale of the last season, will focus primarily on the Underwoods as proven by a large majority of the episodes concentrating on the husband and wife. Both Spacey and Wright are the highlight in terms of delivering a performance, second to none. Together, they are as enigmatic as they are ruthless, especially when they both are trying to outdo each other’s political manoeuvres. It really is nothing short of a treat to watch these two go at each other throats with no holds barred. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Photo: IMDb[/caption] In a nutshell, the fourth season picks up the losing momentum from the third season and ramps it up to an elevated ground. Season three was marred with inconsistencies and a plot arch that did not gel in together as a cohesive and unified story narrative. The themes were too generalised but this time, they have delivered in spades. Props to House of Cards creator Beau Willimon, with him exiting the show and not returning for the fifth season, it shall be interesting to note how things progress from here on out. Season four ends up on a high note with multiple possibilities that can be explored in the upcoming season(s) of the show, but with writers having exhausted many of the scenarios till now, one hopes that this show doesn’t falter and collapse under its own weight. Here’s hoping for the best. This season is so powerful that it will hit you like a bullet projectile fired from a close range! I would give this season an easy rating of 8/10. It is without a doubt the best season of the House of Cards, period!

For a show that calls itself House of Cards (HoC), you’d expect its cards to start falling at some point. Maybe in the span of five seasons, 65 episodes and much screen time, you’d expect that to happen. But the Underwoods, it seems, never run out of their cards – with every snail-paced episode, the duo acquire more cards than Patrick Bateman collected in the entirety of American Psycho, advertently ending up being invincible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW8Zyt8SF_U Spoilers alert! As disappointing as it is stagnant, the show is back to square one when even the world’s slowest elements are speeding up – Sahir Lodhi’s inability to display rationality has sped up, heck, even Pakistan’s run rate has sped up as per this Champions Trophy. If there’s anything that hasn’t sped up, it’s HoC, where the cards seem to have been glued tightly by an insidious tube of Kragle – potentially orchestrated by Mr Everything-in-congress-is-my-business Underwood (Kevin Spacey) so as to keep his Legoland under his supreme control. To try and pinpoint exactly where HoC went wrong is as impossible as trying to predict Shahid Afridi’s plausibility to pull off his boom boom stereotype to perfection. Funnily enough though (and pardon my cricket analogies, but it’s been a bloody good cricketing season and the euphoria has not yet faded), this season of HoC felt very much like a classic Afridi innings. For the first 10 episodes, nothing really happened, all was hush-hush, and it’s not like the show didn’t try – they simply pulled an Afridi on us by practically underperforming for the bulk of the season and then accelerating to such high speed in the culminating episodes. The pace this season was a problem, the dialogue was a problem, the plots were a problem, Doug Stamper (Michael Kelly) was a problem (of course he was), Tom Yates (Paul Sparks) was the biggest problem, and most uncharacteristically, even Frank’s otherwise glorious monologues were a problem. Season five began with a promising Frank barging into a hall and delivering a stunning speech, proclaiming he will not yield. But as the plot progresses (or doesn’t, as it happens this season), one feels that it’s the writers who will not yield; they will not yield to a HoC without the ultimate supremacy of the Underwoods, and that’s where everything goes wrong for the show. Here are seven reasons which explain why HoC fell short this season and the points at which it refuses to arrive – just like the electricity in Karachi during sehri. 1. The Underwoods are invincible Zoey Barnes (Kate Mara) couldn’t bring them down. Lucas Goodwin (Sebastian Arcelus) couldn’t bring them down. Gavin Orsay (Jimmi Simpson) couldn’t bring them down. That journalist from the fourth season you barely remember, couldn’t bring them down. Tom Hammerschmidt (Boris McGiver) is having problems hammering them, and the Conways can con everyone but them with their ways. Garrett Walker (Michel Gill), Remy Danton (Mahershala Ali), Jackie Sharp (Molly Parker), Catherine Durant (Jayne Atkinson), and Raymond Tusk (Gerald McRaney) couldn’t bring them down. There’s an entire battalion of smart, well-connected people here who could bring the Underwoods down, but the writers don’t want that. The writers are intoxicated on the pair and seldom seem to want to sober up. At this point, they should just rename the show ‘The Invincibles’ and be done with it. Remember that snappy, smirking and scheming sari-toting femme fatale villain in those Indian soaps your mother used to watch on Star Plus, the ones who always had a plan and a backup plan? Yeah, that’s pretty much the Underwoods at this time, and it’s easy to see why this particular season was more unimpressive than even Sehwag’s tweets. https://twitter.com/virendersehwag/status/875385485140426752 2. Scooby Dooby Doug The Dany arch in Game of Thrones is still more prone to being in a pretty kettle of fish as compared to the Underwoods. Dany has her dragons, the Unsullied, the Second Sons, the Martell army, the Tyrell army, Tyrion Lannister, Lord Varys, Yara Grejoy, and the Dothraki. The Underwoods have Doug. And that’s all they need to stay one step ahead of anyone who dares rival their supremacy. Whatever other weapons they might have, such as Frank’s sociopathy, pales in comparison to the miracles Doug’s hugger-mugger can conjure up. From getting unsuspecting redheads out of the way to excommunicating hactivists to bullying congressmen, Doug is the man. He does all the dirty work, all by himself, all in the span of a few hours, and still has time for side plots. It often strikes me how the subtraction of the 'U' from Doug’s name can explain so much about him, and that he prefers to thrust the Underwood stamp at anyone he meets literally explains how he is a stamper. Doug is to Frank what Davos is to Stannis, sans the onions and the humanism. Never the underdoug and always there for the rescue, Frank can proudly say that a Doug is a man’s best friend. 3. Surprise characters nobody cares about Instead of bringing back familiar faces, the likes of Jackie and Remy, we have someone named Mark Usher (Campbell Scott) and Jane Davis (Patricia Clarkson) and half a dozen other new faces which have popped out of nowhere. Not only did they apparate out of thin air, they are all suddenly major players in the game, posing a serious threat to the Underwoods. But we all know that nothing is ever a threat to the Undertakers of Washington. 4.That one character nobody cares about Speaking of surprise characters, the only unimportant familiar character the writers decided to bring back to the season was the extremely annoying Tom Yates. He has no significance to the overall plot and no precedent to be in places like the Situation Room at the White House. He has no discernible poetic prowess to be called a writer and no character to be courted by Claire almost-a-Queen Underwood. And yet he’s there, boring us with his monotonous voice. Perhaps viewers would have cheered his death had it come earlier on, but by the time he died we were skipping all his scenes anyway. 5. Skip away Speaking of skipping scenes, a number of side plots, dialogues, and monologues this season are so irrelevant to the overall plot that you can skip them and still make sense of the show. Skip the Doug side plot. Skip the other Doug side plot. Skip the Mcallen/Leann romance. Skip the Frank/Eric bromance. Skip all the times Frank and Claire are regurgitating their previous conversations. Skip to the 10^th episode, if you will, and you’ll still make sense of the season. Needless to say, skip all Tom Yates scenes to escape death by boredom. 6. Fillers For a show that began as beautifully as HoC did, fillers should practically be a capital sin. Do we really need Frank to tell us how to kindle a fire? Or do we really need Frank to harangue us on the same lecture about power a dozen times in front of a different DC monument each time? Or do we really need to see Zoey Barnes’s father, or Lisa, or irrelevant old journalists, or hear Lucas Goodwin’s name? Do we really need to see Doug and Leann warm up to each other when one of them is going to die soon after? It’s like the show knows how linear and Underwood-centred it is, so in order to remind us that the HoC universe does not revolve solely around them, the writers allude to characters long insignificant. 7. Sloppy writing HoC had some memorable monologues in the earlier seasons and daring plot twists to spice it up. This season, we had Claire break the fourth wall only to say the most vague and unimpressive of things. She doesn’t communicate with the viewer as often as Frank does, and her breach of the fourth wall seems more or less forced, almost like a way out for the writers. They have to do away with Frank for the time being, so they mould Claire into the very same vessel. There is no variety or ingenuity. It’s plain repetition and it’s plain boring. The grand reveal of the final episode, followed by a painstakingly slow season, seemed forced just as well, instead of giving the vibes of a plot twist. So Frank planned it all. Cool. Nobody’s surprised. He plans everything around here. It seemed as if the writers were having fun with getting the dirt on Frank out in public, but then realised they just can’t discard their ultimate ubermensch fantasy, and so Frank was written off as the mastermind behind his own demise, which made zero sense. It’s tosh. It’s nonsensical. It’s bollocks. The Frank we know from the first four seasons wouldn’t have done it. The only reason such a sequel should have been in order is the problem that the writers simply cannot part ways with the idea of Frank masterminding absolutely everything. HoC has run its course and if the producers think they can stun us with Claire taking Frank’s position and doing the same things over again, they’re deluded. Plot demands progression and HoC is parched. Its latest instalment was devoid of humour and raft with filler dialogue, filler plots, and filler monologues. But most disappointingly, it was flooded with filler Frank and that did all the damage on its own. The show is drunk on Frank, is possessed so completely by him that the writers fail to find a way out without abandoning him and his grand persona. It’s stuck in the Underwood limbo which dictates that the Underwoods cannot be destroyed. If HoC proposes to continue on its linear, monotonous path, more people are bound to lose faith in it just as they have lost interest in it. There’s only one way HoC can recover, that’s by getting over the Underwoods. It’s a house of cards for Donald Trump’s sake, and it’s bound to come crashing down. All photos: IMDb

Netflix has been dominating the television landscape for a number of years now. Their strategy of rolling out entire seasons in a day has been a successful one because of how quickly it has turned people to binge-watching. Another reason for their success is that they have not only produced great shows, but produced genre-diverse shows, which means they have got a little something for everyone. Shows like House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Master of None, Making A Murderer and Narcos are all part of this list. Ozark is the latest show to join this list. Created by Bill Dubuque – the writer of The Accountant and The Judge – it’s a crime-drama that follows the story of Marty Byrde (Jason Bateman). Marty is a financial advisor and money launderer for a drug cartel who finds his life hanging in the balance when his angry cartel boss finds out his associates have been skimming money from him. In order to save his life and to appease his boss, he proposes for him and his family to move to the Lake of the Ozarks and set-up a money laundering operation to clean large amounts of cash, far from the eyes of the law. What Marty is stunned to discover, when he finally reaches the lake, is that there is already so much crime down there that doing anything would be a massive challenge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hAXVqrljbs A very obvious comparison Ozark draws – as mentioned by just about anyone who has seen the show – is that between Breaking Bad and Justified. Both the shows’ central dynamics are similar – the idea of a seemingly simple guy turning to a life of organised crime to protect his family is reminiscent of Breaking Bad. On the other hand, the crime-ridden small-town from the south, with the titular location and a cascade of idiosyncratic characters that inhabit it, is oddly indicative to Justified’s Harlan County and its characters. The problem, however, is that Ozark isn’t half as good as any of those two shows were. The most glaring problem out of them all is how serious the entire show is, so much so that it often borders on self-parody. The show suffers from a very serious identity crisis because you’re never quite sure what it wants to be and the financial jargon masked as metaphors don’t help. A show like Breaking Bad had clarity in storytelling where the show runners knew exactly which themes and elements to focus on, but here, you do not feel that clarity. The tone of the entire first season is relentlessly despairing too, even though there isn’t anything of that magnitude going on in the show. There are moments of humour and light-heartedness that mostly feel detached from the show. And the show runners try rigorously to shock you with sudden bursts of violence, an ‘out of the blue’ revelation at the end of most episodes or a new twist, just to keep things interesting. Unfortunately, none of these things feel earned and rather feel more like a hail-mary to compensate for the plodding pacing and inconsequential events of most episodes. The performances are good, but not exactly something to boast about. Bateman and Laura Linney do most of the heavy lifting. Bateman, apparently still trying to convince people he can do more than just comedy, plays Marty’s character without many showy hysterics. Some of his best scenes are with his wife Wendy, played by Linney. And to the show’s credit, it does a good job of creating an interesting and complex relationship between Marty and Wendy. Esai Morales and Peter Mullan often infuse the show with a certain sense of menace as the somewhat low-key antagonists, but they aren’t in it enough to be considered as major characters. The former plays a ruthless drug cartel member who Marty ends up working for, while the latter plays a native drug runner in the Ozarks. Ultimately though, Ozark fails to come into its own as the crime-drama it is so desperately trying to be. It feels too much like a bits-and-pieces show where certain fragments and threads work but the show, as a whole, fails to click. Most people would say it’s a little unfair to judge a show just by its first season. After all, so many great shows have followed their mediocre first seasons with excellent forthcoming ones. Unfortunately, I just don’t see that happening with Ozark, because the potential just isn’t there and that is perhaps the most disappointing thing about it. All photos: IMDb

Something strange has happened amid the recent allegations levelled at Kevin Spacey by actor Anthony Rapp, who claims Spacey assaulted him – then aged 14 – at a 1986 Hollywood party. Oddly, nobody has asked Rapp what he was wearing at the time. Nobody asked why it took him so many years to report the abuse. Nobody asked if he were being paid to speak out, was a gold-digger, or just wanted attention. Nobody asked if he had a grudge against Spacey, or was a man-hater. Nobody asked why he freely went to Spacey's house, or said he shouldn't have been there. Nobody asked if his memory was faulty about an event that took place 30 years ago, or if he might have misinterpreted Spacey's intent. Nobody looked up his sexual history or claimed he once worked as an exotic dancer. Nobody needed to find more of Spacey's victims to legitimise Rapp's claims. And nobody asked Rapp if he'd been drinking. Because he has been believed – Rapp has been universally supported, and Spacey similarly condemned. Spacey, almost immediately, more-or-less admitted his crime, and apologised for it. Other celebrities and powerful people have rushed to back up Rapp's story and join the condemnation of Spacey, and Netflix suspended production on his television show, House of Cards. This is all just as it should be. https://twitter.com/billyeichner/status/924867215459012608 https://twitter.com/fakedansavage/status/924862060562857984 https://twitter.com/deray/status/924992427269787653 But compare this response to Rapp's assault to what happens to women who report similar or more serious sexual attacks. So far, more than 50 women have reported criminal sexual assaults, including rape, involving Bill Cosby. For Harvey Weinstein, the number of victims could be in the hundreds. For Jimmy Savile, the same. And there are more men being exposed every day now in the arts, in business and the media (anywhere, in fact, where powerful men have universally made the rules) for crimes going back decades. Yet even now, when women report their attackers, they are commonly disbelieved and silenced. Not only that, but the majority are vilified, slut-shamed, ridiculed and, if possible, their careers are ruined. There is much about the situation involving Spacey that is deeply troubling. For a start, Spacey's linking of gay men with paedophilia during a speech and several tweets since the allegation broke is unforgivable. Gay men have long been wrongly linked with child abuse, causing immense harm to them and the children in their lives (I have had personal experience of this, since I was castigated by a friend for allowing my twin sons, aged nine, to spend the weekend with my gay brother and his partner). https://twitter.com/KevinSpacey/status/924848412842971136 So, too, is Spacey's attempt to absolve himself of responsibility because of drunkenness. And the way Spacey turned Rapp's accusation into a coming-out speech, with himself as the central character/victim, is tone-deaf and horrendously manipulative, and, again, casts gay men in a disgustingly offensive light. Amid all of this, it is not only great that Rapp was believed, but also important. But the difference between his experience and that of women in similar situations is stark. There is a view that the heightened furore over this case is because the victim was a child at the time, and not because he was male. Yet even here, the difference between male and female disclosures is clear. The main accuser of Hey Dad! star Robert Hughes was a young girl, who was widely hated when she told her story. Woody Allen's own daughter Dylan Farrow is still being called a liar, as is Roman Polanski's teenage victim, and many of the children Savile raped. It's still clear the common denominator for having your story believed is that you are male, and the common denominator for being denounced as a liar or a slut (or both) is that you are female. While the propensity remains for people to instinctively believe men over women, rape convictions will remain dismally low. Multiple studies show that only about 4% of rapists are convicted. Yet, if we examine how comprehensively women are shamed and silenced when they do report assault, perhaps it is amazing that convictions are ever achieved at all. Until Weinstein and the recent #MeToo movement, nearly all men accused of sexual crimes have not only been believed but have, largely, maintained their careers and their lives. Rolf Harris kept working for decades after his accusers came forward, as did Cosby and the others. Allen is still working and is widely feted. And one of the men reported by more than a dozen women as a serial sexual attacker – and who has, in addition, freely confessed to groping women without consent – is now the leader of the free world. Let that sink in. This post originally appeared here.

There is only one thing I enjoy watching more than serial killers and that is viewing these serial killers in a period milieu. Call me eccentric, but no other work of fiction fascinates me like the ones dealing with this particular genre. So when these homicidal maniacs were placed in the 1970s setting by a director who knows this cinematic category like a serial murderer knows his victims, for me it was Eid, Christmas and Diwali all rolled into one. Having already helped Netflix become a respected player in original programming with House Of Cards, acclaimed filmmaker David Fincher returns to the network with a new serial killer drama, Mindhunter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZCfRD_zWE Based on the 1995 memoir Mindhunter, by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, the show kicks off in the late 70s where a young, curious Agent Holden Ford (Jonathan Groff), who has a particular interest in criminal psychology, joins FBI Behavioural Sciences Unit. There, he is drafted by senior agent Bill Tench (Holt McCallany) to travel across the US modernising police departments on the FBI’s latest investigative techniques. On one of these trips, the two agents are contacted for help by a local officer working a particularly gruesome case. But after realising that the bureau is unable to offer any valuable insight, both Ford and Tench decide to do something about it. As a consequence, the duo starts interviewing some of the most notorious imprisoned serial killers of the time in order to piece together a familiar pattern that these particular types of unsolved murders entail. Later, they are joined by a psychology professor, Wendy Carr (Anna Torv), and together the trio create a brand new field of criminal science – the study and profiling of serial killers. This new approach to solving crime was such a novel concept back in the day that they were instead called sequence killers.

“How do we get ahead of crazy if we don’t know how crazy thinks?” Agent Tench is seen asking his somewhat sceptical boss at a point during the show.

“All religions preach predestination,” states Luke Kenny’s scary interpretation of a cool and cold Malcom Murad. “When I was born in Luxor, Egypt and you were born in… Mumbai? It had been written that you and I will meet here.”

“Working in film does not allow for complex characterisations the way that television allows.”

“Cancelled” – that’s the impromptu public response whenever a known personality is accused of harassment. When Ukhano (Umar Khan) was exposed for alleged harassment recently by multiple women, he was instantly 'cancelled' by a significant percentage of people on social media, that is until Polish vlogger Eva Zu Beck shared her experience of working with him. Just because he hasn't harassed you, doesn’t mean he’s not a harasser In an Instagram story, Beck shared how she went trekking with Khan for two months, during which he never made her feel uncomfortable or threatened at any point. It made sense for her to come out in support of her friend. But here's the bigger argument. How can Beck, a foreign traveller with a strong following on social media, relate to – dare I say – 'random' girls like you and I? Beck's personal experience of working with Khan undermines and disregards the testimonies of a dozen other women. Anoushey Ashraf, in a now deleted post, also initially extended support to Khan. But once presented with the evidence against him, Ashraf retracted her statement and shared that she had no idea about it. Again, this support was really bizarre because just because he's your friend, doesn't mean he can't be a harasser. Blindly supporting your friends, until you've been presented with solid, credible proof and have little choice left, undermines the victims who speak out about their experiences with the said person. Obsession with proof Last week, when actor Mohsin Abbas Haider was outed as an abuser by his wife Fatema Sohail, it started a vigorous debate on domestic violence in Pakistan. Numerous celebrities came out in support of Fatema, and condemned the actor's behaviour. Some actors even claimed to witness Fatema's ordeals. https://twitter.com/realhaniahehe/status/1152692472419627008 https://www.instagram.com/p/B0LKqlSgrSC/?utm_source=ig_embed The case of Mohsin and Fatema had a very one-sided opinion from people. Mohsin was labelled an abuser on social media and was rightfully called out for his problematic behaviour. He was eventually fired from a very famous prime-time show. However, people are still having a hard time calling Ukhano out on his troublesome activities. What’s the difference in their cases apart from the form of harassment/abuse? Proof. Our society is obsessed with physical, tangible proof of harassment or abuse. Since the possibility of the screenshots being forged weakened the proof many girls had against Ukhano, the public reaction to his event wasn’t outrageous. But Fatema's bruised pictures quelled our thirst for solid evidence and that explains the immense public outrage at it. The benefit of the doubt In Mohsin's case, a few social media users lashed out at Fatema's supporters to 'wait for the other side of the story'. This clearly implies that the proof and pictures Fatema shared on social media to account for her ordeal weren't enough. In Ukhano's case, the screenshots women presented were easily disregarded on grounds of being fake or doctored. As if whatever the vlogger himself said was definitely true. In Ukhano's case, Taimoor Salahuddin, more commonly known as Mooroo, shared that he would rather wait for both sides of the story than jumping onto a bandwagon of 'outrage culture'. He uploaded an Instagram video stating,

"We don't know the truth for now. We need to weigh in facts and wait for the truth to come out. What does this 'cancel Ukhano, cancel everyone' even mean? This outrage culture on social media needs to be heeded at. Now that we know one of side of the story, let’s wait for the other part. I’m not saying I believe Umar. I’m just saying I support the truth – whatever that might be.”

"Like a compass needle that points north, a man's accusing finger always finds a woman. Always."

In the popular TV show House of Cards, American President Franklin Underwood faces a hostage situation with a group of extremists loyal to the Islamic Caliphate Organisation. The loyalists can easily be taken out and the hostage freed, but the president uses the public death of the hostage as political capital. Because of investigations into the president’s tainted past, he raises an effective disinformation campaign against the terrorist organisation, rallies Congress, and declares war. The American people are scared and choose to place their faith in the president, forgetting any accusations of foul-play, corruption, and murder. In the real world, we have seen a wave of populist leaders often using the same tactics to win support or intimidate the masses into ostracising segments of the population. In Narendra Modi’s India, RSS propaganda is spreading like wildfire, claiming that Muslim men with their four wives have an agenda to produce more children than their fellow Hindus, and hence there will be a Muslim majority within a decade in India. In Eastern Europe, leaders have raised concerns about refugees spreading Islamic radicalism, thus turning every citizen into a virtual border security officer. But the biggest harbinger has been Donald Trump – a man who has spent years spinning so many conspiracy theories, anti-Muslim anecdotes and pro-isolationist road-maps. From promising the Great Wall of America, to instituting the Muslim ban, to trying to build a registry of Muslims, and to moving their embassy to Jerusalem, he has nurtured Islamophobic elements, while strengthening his support over a largely isolated voter base. Internationally, the killing of Qasem Soleimani will prove to be one of the most important moments in Trump’s tenure. Based on partisan lines, Republicans have endorsed his decision while Democrats have criticised the unnecessary escalation. But the decision principally placed the United States in a precarious position. This was exemplified by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s string of tweets advertising ‘endorsements’ from several countries following the military action, including Pakistan. At the time of writing, the current news cycle is hysterically covering the Iranian response, American invitations to de-escalate, and general military presence in the powder keg that is the Middle East. Tehran’s actions can be speculated upon, but this assassination shows that Trump has hardened the worldview on Iran: ‘the crazy Islamic, anti-Israel, anti-Saudi nuclear wild-card with a lot of oil.’ But the way Trump has shaped relations with Iran has weakened American foreign policy. As a hegemonic state, its own state institutions are choosing to distance themselves by reiterating the president’s role. The president, rather than taking a sane diplomatic approach, has further rallied domestic support to threaten Iran by targeting 52 sites of religious and historic significance in Iran. Trump essentially decided to nullify the Iran Nuclear Deal, not because of the contents but because it signalled to the rest of the world that any commitment that Washington makes is only valid until the next president walks in. It has been interesting to see the rise of populism across the world. Even in Pakistan, Imran Khan’s primary promise was to bring the elite and the corrupt to justice, but Trump’s brand of populism goes beyond just “draining the swamp.” He has slowly weaponised the presidency to create a normalised hotbed of authoritarian tendencies that some American people have fully supported. In reality, Trump is essentially an impeached president, yet to be convicted. His presidency has been marred by unprecedented scandals of such magnitude and frequency that it could be argued that Trump was a stress-test for the American constitution. If he survives the conviction, he will be up for re-election in November this year. Hence, the defiant killing of an Iranian general in the face of an outraged Iran is a look which will do well for his electoral narrative. One can hope that peace reigns in the Middle East and beyond, but it is oddly reminiscent of Modi’s alleged surgical strike in Balakot (read: re-election bid) that allegedly killed 300 terrorists. Even if true, the attack is principally wrong as it is a violation of our sovereignty. Pakistan could not let bygones be bygones as it would have set a terrible precedent. Similarly, the killing of Soleimani, and past American behavior with Iran (read: re-election bid and post impeachment distraction), can be seen as a violation of Iranian sovereignty. Populism is often conflated with totalitarian regimes because populist leaders often engage in game-changing, disruptive practices to differentiate themselves from the usual brand of career politicians. This pursuit to break the status quo is achieved through riling the masses, united under one flag, against an ideal or a people. If done carefully, populism shows itself to be mostly benign, as is the case with Imran. However, when pushed out of proportion by one of the most powerful empires of the last hundred years, it can spew a divisive agenda of hatred, bigotry, and radicalism.