Interstellar (2014)

Rating: 4/4

Spoiler-free review:

Blame it on the medium if you are not too enamored by Interstellar. Because, what can do complete justice to this script is not a motion picture - it is black board and chalk and mathematics. Given the limitations, lesser directors would have opted for dumbing-down of the script - nothing wrong with the approach, of course - but director Christopher Nolan, with his trademark relish in puzzling audiences, opts otherwise.

To his credit, Nolan does sprinkle his narrative throughout with short tutorials on relativity, mostly as quick verbal exchanges between the protagonists, before a related event or a consequence transpires on-screen. What he does not do is wait for us laggers in the audience to catch up or collect our thoughts - 3 hours simply isn't long enough for such "breaks", what with at least 4 well-developed characters, dense and layered narrative, and of course, the requisite "money" shots.

There are a few innovative thrill-sequences, one of which goes extreme in exhilaration and spectacle, the likes of which were seen only in Gravity(2013). But thats about it. Nolan has instead chosen to spend the bulk of his money in generating awe: the panoramic views of cosmos, the elegant slowness of its participants and the artistic rendering of cosmic events that are as yet theorized but never perceived, are smile- and glow-inducing. Or maybe not, for those expecting more thrills.


The movie does presume at least familiarity, if not understanding, of gravity and relativity. So, here's a little primer for the future audience:

1. Spinning in space :
Space stations spin like a wheel to create artificial gravity for people inside it. People standing inside along the spokes of this imaginary wheel, find the centrifugal force pushing them to the periphery similar to gravity on Earth.

2. Fly-by:
 Spacecrafts save fuel by utilizing a planet's gravity to "sling-shot" themselves: they fly close enough to a planet to come under its gravitational influence and literally fall into the planet at an angle(not towards the center of planet). This fall accelerates the spacecraft free of charge.
The resultant velocity is enough to push it out of gravitational influence and continue towards its destination with increased speed. The law of momentum still applies here: The gain in momentum of spacecraft equals the loss in momentum of planet. So, the planet itself loses a billionth/trillionth of its velocity.

3. Time:
It has been experimentally observed (by Michelson-Morley,1887) that speed of light (c) remains same irrespective of the observer's velocity i.e., say 'A' measures while running at a million miles/sec, and 'B' measures while at rest; the experiment proved that they would both calculate 'c' to be the exact same value. This is surprising because A's relative velocity should have made a difference. Two decades later, a clerk in a patent office (guess who) explained this baffling phenomenon: the observed speeds were same because the times were different. Simply put, each of us, occupying individual spaces, have individual time. It is because that these individual times always align, we wrongly assume one single and absolute time, when in fact time is relative. In our example, A's time(t) was slower relative to B's time(T); meaning, 1 sec of A's time is worth many in B's time. An interesting side-effect of this is, A ages in t(slower time) while B ages in T(faster time).

(An application in real world: Cruise missiles moving at high speeds and targeting over long distances never calculate their detonation times based on their on-board clocks, as they run slower than their on-ground counterparts)

4. Worm-hole:
A 'bend' in space that causes overlap in 2 different spaces. Theoretically, it allows shortcuts between distant spaces. Easier still, imagine it as a U-turn that allows jumping between start and end points. (Sure, you can still traverse the entire 'U' and reach the other end a trillion years from now, if that's your thing)

5. Space-time continuum:
Simply called space-time, this is an extension to the 3-dimensional space that we understand. Now that Einstein theoretically proved that every 3-D point in space has its own time, it turned out that, mathematically speaking, we needed 4-D co-ordinates whenever time calculation was involved too.

6. N-dimensions:
Scientists have theorized and laid mathematical foundations for solving problems beyond 4-Dimensions. What those new dimensions may turn out to be is anybody's guess. Unfortunately for us, waiting and watching wouldn't really work. It could be eons before we evolve the intellect to identify the new dimensions.

Most of the science above is lifted from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Arthur C.Clarke's 2001:A Space Odyssey and Youtube.


!!!!!!!!  Spoilers follow !!!!!!!!!!!

Explaining The Ending:

1. Cooper goes into the black hole to get data needed to solve the problem of getting people out of Earth.
2. The inside of the black hole turns out to be 5-D(the script consultant, Kip Thorne, is a theoretical physicist. I am guessing that he's got enough theory to back this)
3. 5-D is, obviously, more than just 4-D space-time: it is in fact space-timeless. It has every moment (i.e. every space-time event) occurring simultaneously. Beginning and End have no meaning here.
4. He gets the requisite data with the help of LARS, but he cannot carry the data back to Earth by retracing his steps (he'd be too late, remember?)
5. So he sends it as a binary code to his daughter using Gravity, the one force that is unbounded by and can act across time.
6. In all of this Cooper is only a relay for information from inside of the black-hole to his daughter. His presence is required because only he has the 'connection' (read Love) to act as relay to his daughter (Frankly, this Love facilitating things seemed pretty forced and a little botched)
7. Back on earth, Murph gets enough data for their first jump to an Elysium'esqe home near Saturn, their first milestone on their way to their second home planet (where the cute Dr.Brand is busy making it habitable)
8.  The first step to all of this is the creation and "placing" of a worm-hole within human reach and human time. This was done by those super-humans in the future (who do not appear in the movie) who evolved from normal humans and owe their existence to Cooper's daughter(Murph) - a case of "end providing for the means".

9. What's the deal with Murphy's law(whatever can happen WILL happen)?
Super-humans(from future) made sure that super-humans WILL exist, with Murph Cooper's help. That's pretty Murphy, isn't it?

Looper (2012)

Rating: 3.5/4

(Minor spoilers)

What do you think happens when Cause and Effect are out to get each other?
Looper(2012), which is writer/director Rian Johnson's answer to it, is a tight little package with an interesting premise, an exhilarating and fresh exploration of the premise, brilliant characters and original thrills, that succeeds in holding your attention for the whole 2-hour run-time (and maybe even a little more, including retrospection).

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a hitman whose targets are sent from the future. He is making a killing (pun intended) and everything is going great until the day arrives when he has to close his own 'loop', i.e. to kill his future self (Bruce Willis). Early on in the movie, in what may be the movie's most inventive episode, we come to know of the gruesome things that can happen to those who do not close their loops.
The movie does not presume to explain the age-old paradoxes of time-travel; it gives them a nod here and there but moves on, employing time-travel to allow some devilishly ingenious relationships to develop between people with motives they would kill or die for. This, more than any other trait, sets this movie apart.

Seen out of context, the action sequences would seem pretty tame and short; but within the 2-hour window, they provide the perfect occasional jolt for that little craving at the back.
There was nothing in the acting or the direction that caught my unwarranted attention, which probably means they were flawless. What I did notice however, was a striking similarity between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Robert DeNiro doing his trademark smile. Is it just me, or has anyone else observed that?


Is Looper this year's Inception?
Plot-wise, Looper is a closer cousin to Minority Report(2002) (and even Macbeth to a degree) than to Inception. Like Inception, the most fun in Looper is in picking up the crumbs and figuring out things by ourselves; but unlike Inception, Looper is not a mindfuck - there are not too many things that need figuring out.
So - stating my opinion here -  it is not up there with Inception (or Minority Report for that matter), but it comes pretty close.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Rating: 3.5/4

TDKR is a relentless and pulse-elevating first hour (which is also the best part of the movie), and a action-and-spectacle loaded final hour, with about 45 min of mediocre connecting material. It is this mediocrity that prevents it from being a great movie.

The prologue, a wow-evoking episode that gives us a taste of the super-villain, sets the bar at an all-time high; and it is from here that the story kicks off. Batman has retired and the crime is at an all-time low in Gotham, but as it turns out, its just the calm before the Bane - a terrorist with one objective: bringing down Gotham. So Bruce Wayne is persuaded one last time to don the mask to fight someone who is his superior in physical strength and resources. Nolan's vision and and Tom Hardy's protrayal have created not just a terrorist, but a terror; though not as iconic as the Joker, Bane's delivery of anarchy is more terrifying and at the same time, awe-inspiring.
In one deft move, he immobilizes the police force, breaks Batman and establishes himself as the protector of anarchy.

Trouble starts when Bane achieves his objective; barely anything interesting happens next - The police are trapped, Batman is helpless, Catwoman is not important anymore and, Gordon and his protege are too outnumbered to do anything credible. Nolan depends on Han's Zimmer score to alleviate this mediocrity; I guess it did not work because I was looking forward to Batman's return. Luckily, he did not disappoint; he and his BatMobile delivered the much needed bang.

Though the execution was partially flawed, the scope and ambition of this movie elevates it to a 3.5/4 stars rating

Prometheus (2012)

Rating: 3/4

(Almost spoiler-free)

Prometheus, the sci-fi movie, is great; Prometheus, the thriller movie, is mediocre.

Putting Darwin's evolution theory to sleep, the movie offers a compelling (abeit confusing) take on the big question: How did we come to be? Like all good sci-fi, instead of answering, it imagines newer possibilities and makes us think of more questions. Who created our creator? Why is it implicit that a creator loves its offspring? In fact, the trilllionaire (Guy Pearce, Memento) who funds the odyssey in this movie has more love for his android David (Michael Fassbender, X-Men:First Class) than for his biological daughter (Charlize Theron). In such a case, is it far-fetched to imagine our creator trying to destroy us?  Early in the movie, when asked why humans were created, David the android responds, 'Why did you create me?'. Director Ridley Scott is careful not to give any easy answers, but he does sprinkle clues throughout the movie. Its obvious that he wants us to think. The science is imaginative yet believable, the CGI is seamless... call this one 2093:A Space Odyssey.

There is one terrifying and terrific scene involving the heroine (Noomi Rapace, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) in an automated surgery which makes us feel how it is be claustrophobic; reminds us how it felt throughout watching Alien(1979) for the first time. Sadly, Prometheus has just one such scene to boast of, the rest of the thrills seem prefunctory. It seemed like Ridley Scott was less interested in the thrills and more interested in the journey the sole-survivor undertakes at the end; trouble is, the movie ends there. To be fair, Scott does a decent job with the 'face-hugger' alien, but the movie ending the moment the bad-ass xenomorph arrives leaves us unsatisfied (This might not mean much to those who haven't watched Alien(1979) and Aliens(1986)).

On a whole, the movie's amazing first hour and a mildly disappointing second-hour makes it a recommended watch for those who wouldn't mind sci-fi with spiritual and philosophical undercurrents, and a must-watch for people who liked A.I.(2001), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Contact (1997).

Avengers (2012)

Rating: 3/4

The first hour and half of this movie packs some pretty sleek stunts and CGI. Pity... it will be forgotten by the end of the movie - the sheer spectacle of the final act overshadows everything that was done before in comic-book superhero movies. This is by far the best superhero movie made, replete with despicable villains, unending action and more than requisite laughs. Director Joss Whedon has attempted and surmounted the near-impossible -  Avengers is more than the sum of its superheros.
(I exclude Dark Knight from the comparision; it is more than just a superhero movie).

Loki, still grumpy with super-step-bro Thor and pretty much everyone else, has made plans for a hostile takeover of Earth and it takes Thor, Iron Man, Hulk and Capn. America to persuade him otherwise. As you've guessed already, it is this super-persuasion that makes the movie bottom-heavy on spectacle.
All the supers have brought their charm along from their solo outings, however, there is one who stands out. Hint: Its not Stark or his stylish Iron suit. Apparently writer/director Joss Whedon believes in six impossible things before breakfast; Hulk having a sense of humor being one on the top. Sure, the audience were chuckling at Stark's wise-cracks but they guffawed when Hulk gets even with Thor and Loki. When Hulk smashes, he does it with a certain 'take em head-on' rawness that appeals to our basest senses. Audience cheered... not to the sophisticated superheros.

On the downside, Loki is not a particularly formidable foe. He sports horns now and then but gets beaten blue during most confrontations. Thankfully though, he does lead a nasty army.
Hawkeye, played by Jeremy Renner, is a bad plot-device and even worse is his decision to turn his cloak... he remains a nobody.

--

Q: What does The Hulk offer James Bond?
A: Martini...  Smashed, not stirred.

Chronicle (2012)

Rating : 3/4

Chronicle is a first of sorts - superheroes caught on shaky cam; kinky, but not terribly innovative. Ghosts (Blair Witch Project), monsters (Cloverfield), zombies haven't been immune to voyeurs, so with superheroes it was only a matter of time.

Andrew, Matt and Steve aren't exactly heroes, they are just three kids who stumble upon (tumble down actually) telekinesis - ability to move objects with thought - and then start having fun with it; first in seclusion and then getting progressively bolder. Andrew, the perpetual loner, suddenly has friends who share his superpower, and is suddenly popular at school where his "talent" for magic is out for display. Thankfully, Andrew is not your friendly neighborhood Peter Parker - he is not averse to dispensing gruesome and sometimes fatal punishment to bullies and obnoxious people. He knows that his admirers aren't exactly admiring him and begins to prefer being a super-powerful loner to being restricted by friendship, family or morality.

The supporting two characters aren't well drawn out, but that's okay, we do not really want to know the good guys who are in the way of Andrew's path to self-destruction. The climactic one-on-one chasing and bashing was a little drawn out, but mostly interesting. The Chronicle is amateur video but its no amateur film-making, its worth a watch at the theater and, a while later, another on your TV.

P.S. The shaky cam does not give you a headache, it is stable or close to it more often than not

The Adventures of Tintin:The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

Rating: 3.5 blistering barnacles/4

A collaboration such as this should try in order to go wrong. With Herge providing the story and the story-boarding, Spielberg's creative investment going into the action and special-effects, and Peter Jackson overseeing the production, this part-action, part-comedy is a complete success. Tintin fans were apprehensive, though, because the one they have come to love was a two-dimensional figure (visually, at least) whereas the movie gives them a near-human interpretation. Being a fan myself and having watched the movie, I can affirm that this Tintin preserves the original Herge's spirit, doing it with an additional Spielberg rub off; there is a slight IndianaJonesey-feel to the overall movie experience.

Though the movie is named after one, the story is actually a mash of three books : Secret of the Unicorn, Crab with the Golden Claws, and Red Rackham's Treasure, which isn't surprising because one book would have been insufficient material to work with and would have had some characters robbed of their background story. The globe-trotting and trouble-seeking journalist and his pet dog start off their big-budget Hollywood debut here with a treasure-hunt that pits him against pirates, and their descendants that takes them from Europe to Africa and a first acquaintance with Captain Haddock, Tintin's funny side-kick for all the adventures to come.

The funniest scenes are mostly those lifted from the comics : Captain Haddock's thirst and his 'billions of blue blistering barnacles' are intact, Thomson and Thompson still bumble the way we love them for, Snowy is as expressive as a dog can get and Castafiore's songs that literally resonate. However, when the action is on, the original comics give way to the director's imagination. The special effects and the action scenes are a spectacle in involvement. Two episodes, one being a clash between two pirate ships and another a chase through Moroccon streets are as involving as action gets. These two justify the decision to use 3-D and motion capture. We jump down the buildings, we duck from gun-shots, and when footing is lost, it is our heart in our mouth.