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.

Super 8 (2011)

Rating: 3.5/4

Super 8 is E.T.(1982) and Stand by me(1986) for our time with a bit of District9 (2009) thrown in to generate a few thrills while maintaining the dominant feel-good mood. By lifting a few shots directly from the Spielberg classic and also getting him to produce it, director J.J. Abrams has affirmed that the similarity is intentional. The sure-handedness with which he crafted this movie is what makes the movie almost as enthralling as its predecessor.

**Spoilers**

Joe is a high-school kid who lives with his Deputy Sheriff father having lost his mom in an accident. He spends time helping his friend Charles make a low budget zombie movie along with four other friends including Alice whom Joe has a crush on. One night during a shoot, they witness a freak accident that gets them involved in a Air Force aided government cover-up. Their previously calm suburb suddenly turns hyperactive with a slew of events; the Air Force amassing soldiers to apparently capture a monstrous alien, inexplicable thefts of machine parts, missing people and pets. Joe and his friends try to make their movie in the midst of this chaos convinced by Charles that it would add 'production value' to their movie. But when one of them goes missing, the kids start off an investigation on their own while the army starts evacuating people to satisfy an itch - an itch caused by all the fire power at their hand.

**Spoilers End**

The special effects are dazzling, not that we expect anything lesser from a Spielberg production, but the creature effects and one particularly devastating event that occurs early in the movie - one that manages to shock the audience and one that seems to go on and on - is definitely worth a mention. But no matter how splendid the visuals are, the real charm of the movie is in its depiction of childhood which the director has molded into an endearing and colorful affair. The insecurities, perceptions, infatuations and innocent jealousies are spot on and the earnestness with which they are played out is hilarious. To these kids, the monster-on-loose situation is but an opportunity to capture Air Force personnel in the footage for their movie, and to Charles and Joe, the movie work provides an opportunity to win Alice's affections. Sure there are villains to be found, there is one particularly condescending Air Force Colonel who is hell bent on maintaining secrecy and has no qualms silencing trouble-makers, but we do not root for his death. Had he been rendered as a devil-incarnate psychopath, a stand-off between good and evil would have transpired and the movie would have lost its warmth and sweetness in the midst.

Two-thirds into the movie when all the questions have been answered and the creature shows itself completely after nearly 1.5-hrs of tease, I found my involvement in the movie swaying, but that is not very long before the climactic clash and a superb short-film played along with credits. I found myself and other patient viewers walking out with a smile

Game of Thrones

Game of Thrones is the new HBO series based on A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels by George R.R. Martin. It is being aired today for the first time in India at 6.30 p.m.

This is not a review of something that I have not watched. Being half-way through the superb first novel and having a stack of the remaining ones on my bed-side I guessed that its okay to write a heads-up for those who may miss this grand fantasy epic otherwise.

The story is set in the age of kings on a realm consisting of seven kingdoms ruled by noble lords whose allegiance is to their one king, Robert Baratheon. Much against the wishes of his wife and queen, Robert asks his closest friend and ruler of the North, Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark to go with him to the South and become the Hand of the King - a position next only to the King. Queen Cersei and her brother Jaime, a knight of the King's guardians, are Lannisters, the richest and the most power hungry of all the noble houses and rulers of the West. The plot here on follows four main threads - one involving Ned's activities as the Hand and his secret investigations into his predecessor's death and a possible plot to overthrow the king, another involving Ned's wife Catelyn Stark's hunt for retribution against the Lannisters, a third one that follows Daenarys, a young lady of noble origin wedded to a barbarian lord in the East raising an army enough to sweep out the Seven Kingdoms, and a final one involving the Wall in the North - a seven hundred feet high structure guarded by the Black Knights that keeps the realm protected from the Others of the Haunted forest in the unchartered and unmapped lands where even the bravest of men are wise enough not to loiter.

In this medieval epic that has a scope on par with Lord of the Rings, alliances fall and the most unlikely ones form, loyalty and morality need a perspective to be understood, guardian angels are the four-legged carnivorous kind and the ultimate enemy is the one that hasn't been around for almost a decade and is not of man's making... Winter is coming.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Rating: 3/4

Four Harry Potter movies in a row and director David Yates has crafted what is visually his best HP movie. With a color palette restricted to darkest of shades and a score to accentuate it, he has created an atmosphere of gloom that plays a role almost as important as the plot itself. The visual effects are, if not entirely original, spectacularly vivid. However, the movie itself can be slotted slightly below Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince. This has more to do with the bifurcation of the story than with movie craftsmanship. Deathly Hallows Part2 is thin plot-wise and interesting sub-plots in the book do not make it to the movie. I am pretty sure that a 3-hour Deathly Hallows movie in one-part would have made for a better experience than a 4.5-hour two-part one.

(Spoilers ahead)

The story picks up right where it left us in Part-1. Harry, Hermione and Ron are continiuing on their destructive quest for horcruxes. A thrilling break-in into Gringotts and a telepathic eavesdrop later they get a horcrux and a lead about another hidden at Hogwarts. Harry's return to Hogwarts sparks open war between Snape and McGonagall. Snape escapes apparently to join Voldemort who has amassed all his followers for the attack on Hogwarts. McGonagall takes charge of Hogwarts' defenses comandeering anyone willing to fight. Considering the the amazing build-up to the central fight, the fight itself is a bit of a let-down because the focus shifts to the less interesting Horcrux hunting trio. By the time the Horcruxes are disposed off, Hogwarts' defenses have fallen and the fighting is almost done. We are shown that Lupin, his wife and one of the Weasley twins -people we have come to care about - are dead, without any hows or whos. Fortunately the major plot twists are pretty well handled. Snape's story is rendered very well which make his flip-flop between good and evil believable. The tragedy of the unsung hero of Hogwarts hits us with great intensity especially in the epilogue where Harry tells his son, Albus Severus Potter, who he was named after. The whole Harry-the-Horcrux revelation which was a shocker to the book-folk is likely to at least surprise the movie-folk too.

The most often heard complaint is that the climactic Voldemort vs Harry bout is wrapped up pretty quickly. I say, give poor Voldy a break - he has been dying one Horcrux at a time since as early as Chamber of Secrets.

For most Potter-fans the release of Deathly Hallows the book was a landmark event, the movie is mostly a curiosity; they just want to find out how it all translated to screen. But, they are 'all' going to find out, which is why Harold, the most popular Potter, is ruling the box-office in the muggle world right now.

Delhi Belly

Rating : 3/4

So it has finally happened; a mainstream bollywood flick with few holds on profanity and vulgarity- no beeping over 'fuck' or its derivatives, the arse is off taboo list, crudeness is hiked almost to the point of celebration and, in occasion, used as a plot-device. It is a pleasant surprise that this movie made its way out through the censor board.

Unrelated chains of events with unfortunate but hilarious consequences, criss-crossing randomly and culminating at one shoot-out at the end of 1hr 30 mins- thats Delhi Belly in single breath. No, its not a Guy Ritchie film, but DB's writer and director are definitely influenced by Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. The template is copied but the dark filling is thankfully a fresh brew. Three friends/roommates - Tashi, Nitin,Arup - have a bad start when they forget whose turn it is to move the buckets to under the tap one morning. Meanwhile, a gangster is having a bad day too when he has to search for a delivery that hasn't reached him. A series of coincidences and mix-ups later, the trio unwillingly join the hunt while trying to survive the chase.

The gangster's emotional arc - frustration at his inept teammates, patience when cajoling a girl, coldness when torturing a middleman, resignation when he isn't allowed to do room service for quality reasons - all conveyed with a straight face contributes to some of the best laughs. Imran's Tashi feels as fake as his black-eye. He stands out as a guy reciting someone else's funny lines. His only good scenes in the movie are when he is fully covered up or when he doesn't speak much. His friends - Nitin and Arup - however, are very believable and provide the rest of the comedy, given the same screen time as Imran. In fact, Nitin's Disco Fighter revenge is the most original and my personal favourite comic episode in the movie.

What I found a little hard to understand is why the writer and/or director wanted everything to work out perfectly well for the threesome in the end, so much so that they were brutal to everyone else who might even hint at trouble.

The screenplay is not clever enough to pack any surprises, but thats easily excused because it takes us where we expect to reach, bloody cheerfully.

X-Men First Class (2011)

Rating : 3/4

Bad is delicious, Good is just adequate. This is exactly how I felt after watching this prequel to the X-Men movies. The Good side has the peace-loving mutant Charles Xavier (soon to be called Professor X) urging for self-restraint on mutant powers. The not-so-good side has the holocaust survivor Erik Lansherr (a.k.a Magneto) who revels in his superpower while on the vengeful trail of Sebastian Shaw, a deadly mutant who killed his mother and currently seeking world domination. See what I mean? Even with significant screen-time, Xavier isn't half as intriguing as Magneto or Sebastian.

It is 1962 and the Cold War is at its peak with the Cuban missile crisis pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war. Sebastian Shaw(Kevin Bacon), an ex-Nazi scientist and a mutant, is making sure that nothing stops the war that assures human extinction. He believes that what kills the humans will only make the mutants stronger (Doesn't it sound like the popular quote 'what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger'). Unlike Hitler who foolishly tried fighting the USA and USSR, Sebastian pits the biggies against each other. With an ingenuity more diabolic than his mutant superpower, Sebastian makes a superb super-villain whom Kevin Bacon portrays with ease and visible glee. Sebastian however makes one mistake during his days as a Nazi scientist in a concentration camp in Poland - in an attempt to incite a Jewish kid's magnetic powers, he kills his mom. The kid, Erik Lansherr(Michael Fassbender) survives the holocaust and is out for blood. Erik's search for Sebastian and the passionate ruthlessness with which he doles out punishment to the people in his way are among the film's most rousing episodes. His path crosses with that of a telepath,Charles Xavier(James McAvoy), who befriends and trains Erik along with other mutants to control and enhance their powers as they prepare to face their common enemy.

The dense plot which fits nicely into the X-universe built by this movie's predecessors gets top marks. It is with a warped sense of satisfaction that I watched the irony unfold - Magneto filling up Sebastian's void after killing him, ending his friendship with Xavier and the rest having to choose between the two of them. Having watched the sequels (X-Men, X2) the ending isn't a surprise, but its effectiveness is not diminished. After all, they all had their reasons and in Magneto's own words, peace was never an option.The last time I had this feeling was while watching Revenge of the Sith.

What prevents this movie from being a solid entertainer is that it seems to have been affected by short lapses in imagination. There are numerous places where there movie slides down to mediocrity and a few times to downright silly. The mutant training sessions are necessary but apart from the beautiful locations they are shot in, they come across as nothing but bland. Rose Byrne's CIA agent is just a pretty plot-device. There is a scene where she disguises herself as an escort to spy on a Colonel watching him through a crack like James Bond did in his early movies. Didn't we come a long way from that kind of thing? Then there is a mutant girl who flies and spits fire in the most ridiculous way that I wont even waste my time describing how (I cheered when she fell). I wouldn't have complained had it been some low profile director but it being Mathew Vaughn, the man behind the insanely entertaining Kick-Ass and Layer Cake, my expectations are justified.

Bryan Singer, who directed the superb originals X-Men, X2 elected to play producer this time. He is not let down by what Mathew Vaughn delivers. Its just as delicious but with a few bitter seeds strewn over.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Rating : 3.5/4

When evil prevails, when dark days are here to stay, when the good are on their way up and when all hope is lost, you can count on the the Dragon Warrior for deliverance. Mind you thats not much of a comfort because, he may be the Dragon Warrior, but until the nick of time he still is every bit the same stupid fat voracious cuddly squishy panda called Po(Jack Black). And thankfully so, if you ask me. Ain't that what we love him for? Who needs originality when familiarity is this much fun.

The movie begins with a prologue about how Lord Shen(Gary Oldman), son of an Emperor, embraces the dark side to prevent a prophecy foretelling his undoing, from coming true. He uses his spare time, during his banishment from home, to create the one weapon that evokes submissiveness through fear. Just as Po is beginning to live his dream as the Dragon Warrior, staying with his kung fu idols - Tigress, Monkey, Viper,Mantis and Crane - and everything around is boringly peaceful, Lord Shen not-so-subtly returns home to make things interesting.

If Panda-1's Tai Lung and Master Shifu reminded you of Darth Vader and Master Obi-Wan^*, Panda-2's Lord Shen is bound to remind you of You-Know-Who. The prophecy, the parents.. the similarity is so obvious that Po might as well be called Harry Po or The Panda Who Lived. But I'm not complaining because any similarity ends there. Every time there is an attempt at poignancy by someone or a grave situation pops up or a grim tone tries to seep in, leave it to the Panda to reduce everything into a rip-roaringly hilarious affair the very next moment. Armed with unintended irreverence, immunity from sarcasm and abysmally low self-esteem, this Panda is going to hurt your innards. Visually, theres so much to savour in so little time. Gongmen's city, where most of the action takes place, is beautifully vibrant and artistic. Theres so much happening in the co-ordinated and expertly choreographed action sequences that we are bound to miss a few things. Slo-mo is used to good effect, serving the dual purpose of hiking up the 'coolness' and also making sure we dont blink and miss something that shouldn't be missed. The voice cast is joined by a couple of newcomers among whom Gary Oldman as Lord Shen stands out. His deliberate and unhurried delivery of lines, well- accentuated by pauses, oozes menace. When Lord Shen isn't talking, he shows us how deadly a peacock's dance can be. So any doubts about a peacock making a worthy nemesis are sure to be dispelled once Gary Oldman and the animation wizards take over.

My complaints are but minor ones - Why is Master Shifu barely there on screen? Why din't they increase the brightness enough for 3D? The 3D itself was good though. Nevertheless, this movie is filled to the brim with worthy-sequel stuff. So snug in your thermals and head to the cinema.. this one's severely cool

^* Star Wars : Jedi Master Obi-Wan trains a young Anakin Skywalker to become a Jedi. However, Anakin turns to the dark side and becomes Darth Vader and eventually kills Master Obi-Wan

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Rating: 2.5/4

The reviews have been bad, so I set my expectations low. The 3D had apparently given headaches to some of those reviewers,so I watched it in 2D. Nevertheless, the movie still managed to disappoint. The only reason this movie exists is because Disney wanted to pinch the pockets of those who wouldn't be deterred by bad reviews, one last time. Given the large fan base this franchise has garnered, I'd say they were very successful. Nothing personal, Jack... it's just good business.

The plot isn't very original, but it is at least as interesting as its predecessors. This one has Jack Sparrow(Johnny Depp) forced to guide an expedition to the fountain of youth by Blackbeard(Ian McShane); tagging along is his daughter, Angelica(Penelope Cruz) who also happens to be Jack's ex-flame. Two other factions, one led by Barbossa(Geoffrey Rush) on behalf of the Queen, and another by a bunch of Spaniards (who barely have any screen time) are in the race too. The destination itself, of course, lies beyond a perilous journey across mermaid-infested waters, forests, cliffs; all this while everyone is uncompromisingly involved in standard pirate activities like mutiny, desertion and double-crossing.

All this could have worked had the humour and action sequences been more imaginative. As it is, there aren't any hearty laughs to be had. Sure we laugh, but not because the humour is genuinely funny, its because we know that it is supposed to be funny. Johnny Depp, whose Jack Sparrow unsurprisingly generates most of the half-hearted laughter, does not bring in anything new. He follows the 'Jack Sparrow template' which has begun to lose its sheen. Penelope's Angelica is pretty, daring and sadly obligatory. The director fails to realize that even obligatory roles can be made 'interesting' especially when Penelope Cruz is involved. None of the action sequences are noteworthy. Mermaids as deadly seductresses and an encounter with them sounds promising; unfortunately, what could have been a spectacular action scene turns out to be underwhelming and criminally unimaginative. Word of advice to director - when you are trying to tame deadly dangerous other-worldly creatures, let go of your ego and consult Peter Jackson, and on an unrelated note, between you and me, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade isn't obscure enough to be ripped off from.

The movie is not so bad as it is disappointing - disappointing that it has ample opportunity to redeem itself but settles for mediocrity. The film has its moments - Judi Dench's hilarious 'is that all?', Jack starting a mutiny, Blackbeard's menacing and charismatic villainy, breath-taking aerial shots and sets(or are they visual effects?) - but they are few and far between. They are more than counter-balanced by the likes of, say, the ill-advised romantic subplot involving a mermaid and a clergyman(Yes, the clergyman gets laid).

I wouldn't advice watching it, but again, if u are like me, you already did.

Fast Five (2011)

Rating: 3/4

We got Vin Diesel and The Rock pitted against each other when in not one of their best moods.We got lightning streaks masquerading as cars and a director with a fetish for reducing them to pulp every other moment.We got frikkin' hot girls trumping men in the strictly-men's world. This is one cocktail you dont miss and go around calling yourself an action movie buff. They got the combination right the fifth time around.

The two action sequences at the beginning and the end are the stand-outs. The latter one, which involves a runaway vault, isn't like anything that I have seen before. Thats not to say this is a landmark action film -it shamelessly copies from Bourne and Ocean's movies, it threatens us with Vin Diesel trying to emote, and it pits two midgets against Vin Diesel and The Rock. It actually heps that the pace never allows you to delve on anything as long as you are in the theater. Be warned, if you are a thinker, you will hurt yourself watching this movie.

Thor (2011)

Rating: 3/4

As per mythology, Thor is the hammer-wielding God of thunder and lightning after whom Thursday ("Thor's day") gets its name. However in Marvel's comic book universe, he is one arrogant son-of-a-God who, much against his father's wishes jeopardizes the feeble truce that exists between his kingdom of Asgard and the Frost Giants. Angered by Thor's arrogance, his father-and-king Odin(Anthony Hopkins) strips him of his powers and banishes him from Asgard to live on Earth as a mortal.

Much of the movie's creative efforts have gone into the visual-effects and writing departments which partly make up for the pretty simple plot. Jotunheim, the cold, crumbling and dark home of the Frost Giants oozes with artistically-rendered menace and also adds to the creepiness of its inhabitants. In comparision, Asgard is not so imaginatively depicted. The clash between Thor and the Frost Giants on Jotunheim in the first half of the movie is unarguably the highlight of the movie and is on-par with what we have seen in Lord of the Rings. However on the downside, this rises the bar a few notches too high for the rest of the movie to attain. Kenneth Branagh's script infuses humor into the proceedings, just as Jon Favreau's did to Iron Man, which is a good thing because it allows us to forgive some of the weaknesses of the movie.

Talking about weaknesses, Thor's nemesis is not intimidating enough. He is quite a manipulative guy, I 'll give him that, but I expected him to be at least as menacing as his minions. This is primarily why the climactic clash is a letdown. The four warrior friends of Thor who would have been interesting had some time been spent on characterizing them, come across as excess baggage. I am not sure if Branagh has to be blamed for it, its probable that the producers have decided against spending any more time and money on a bunch of disposables - Thor will return to Hollywood in The Avengers (2012), his four friends wouldn't be so lucky.

The acting is uniformly adequate though Stellan Skarsgaard surprised me with his funny turn. Natalie Portman is funny and cute and so very un-Black Swan-like in a good way. There is no motion blur with the 3D, although it could have done with slightly more lighting during the first half-hour. All in all, its fun spending an afternoon with Thor.

Rango (2011)

Rating: 3.5/4

Rango is a chameleon who cannot blend in. There is a hilarious chase scene early in the movie demonstrating this, which actually serves as an indication of things to come. But then, who wants their heroes blended or stirred?We want them shaken and thats literally how Rango starts the story of his life.

Capn. Jack Sparrow meets The Good The Bad &The Ugly in Chinatown - thats Rango in short. Rango gets accidentally deserted in a desert. Heeding the advice of an armadillo, a parched Rango heads off towards the nearest town, the aptly-named Dirt. Dirt at that time is facing its worst water-crisis and its inhabitants are convinced that only a miracle can save them. When Rango, who is most obviously a stranger in the town, accidentally kills the predatory Hawk, the entire town is convinced that he is the miracle worker. He is promptly elected the town's sheriff charged with the task of bringing water to Dirt and protecting the town from the Rattlesnake, who can roam free now that the Hawk is dead. But when the town's last reserve of water is stolen from the bank (yes, people save their hard earned water in the bank), and the town's wise old Mayor turns out to be a little too wise, there isn't much room for Rango's ineptness. He is forced rise to the occassion all while trying not to end up like his predecessor - the sheriff whose headstone reads 'Mon-Thu'

The same smile-inducing quirkiness and dodginess that made Jack Sparrow so adorable is much in evidence here, which isn't very surprising considering that Johnny Depp(Rango's voice) and Gore Verbinski(direction) are behind the scenes.With its dirt-beaten houses, unwashed inhabitants and their apparels which have long lost their original colours, the town of Dirt revels in its dirtiness. What with all the nefarious characters waiting to pick on the weak, gun-slinging being the the most rewarded skill, cacti dying of thirst and the dominant colour being brown, I half-expected Clint Eastwood to pop on the screen any moment. The Man With No Name should at least have an address in Dirt.. which he sort of does.

The animation is top-notch but that seems true for most of the recent animated outings. What really sets Rango apart from the rest is the maturity of the content. It does not take the a-joke-every-minute way but whatever it does isn't repetitive or predictable; sure there is humour throughout but it is low-key because the movie is more interested in telling us the story. Most of the humor comes from Rango's attempts to blend in the crowd and stay out of trouble, both of which he utterly fails in. My favourite however is a quartet of owls who follow Rango everywhere singing out his exploits and expecting him to die a hero's death just because it makes a good story to sing about. The action/chase scenes are well choreographed. Theres one particularly innovative shot early in the movie which shows Rango getting involved in an accident from Rango's perspective.

Rango isnt something you want to wait for on HBO.. go see it now! Leave your brats at home, this one is for you ;)

Rabbit Hole (2010)

Rating: 3/4

When it comes to evoking the audience's emotions, Loss of a loved one is perhaps the most explored theme in films. Sadly however, too often filmmakers resort to manipulating those emotions with excessive melodrama - they end up exploiting rather than exploring. Rabbit Hole avoids this pitfall.

It has been 8 months since Becca(Nicole Kidman) has lost her son in a traffic accident right in-front of her house. She openly taunts other couples at group therapy, she more-than-subtly hints how bad her pregnant sister is gonna be at being a mother, she avoids any kind of counselling from her mother, she gets rid of everything that reminds her of her son - the pet, the clothes, drawings on the fridge. For a moment there it occurred to me that this mom got over her child's death a little too quickly. The same thought troubles her husband Howie(Aaron Eckhart) too. Howie's is the more conventional manifestation of grief - he keeps watching his son's videos on his phone, loves having his son's memorabilia around the home, and sometimes breaks down crying. Friction arises between them when she suggests selling away their home.

When things go wrong we look for people to blame. Since there isn't anyone to blame for her son's death, Becca starts finding faults with everything and everyone that reminds her of her son. This, coupled with her confrontational attitude about the subject makes her look like an obnoxious fault finder. The only one to understand this is Becca's mom (Dianne Wiest) whom Becca avoids listening to or argues with. In one particularly powerful scene where Becca shows her vulnerable side, she asks her mom if the pain ever goes away. Her mom, who herself has lost a son, explains how things are gonna be with soul-stirring simplicity.

Is it necessary to follow a template of emotions for people to sympathize with you? What if the popular way of coping doesn't work for you? These are the questions posed and explored in the movie. The movie title, an obvious reference to Alice in Wonderland, refers to an imaginary parallel universe where anything is possible, including a life where everything goes right. The script is intelligent and tight and the acting is almost uniformly good with Nicole Kidman turning out the best performance.

Thank you for smoking - a review

Rating: 3.5/4

Why would someone hold on to a job that is considered despicable by most of everybody else?

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a spokesman for Big Tobacco corporation, does it because he loves his job. His job is to publicly defend Big Tobacco against any health claims and save business from anti-smoking propaganda. To him, its never about whats right and wrong, its always about winning and losing an argument. More often than not, he wins because he is a smooth talker. In one particularly ludicrous (and hilarious) argument, he accuses an anti-smoking campaigner of wishing for the death of a cancer patient to appear right, while arguing that Big Tobacco would only wish for the patient to live because they would be losing a customer.

The movie is populated by a host of colorful characters that include :

Nick's wannabe nemesis, Vermont Senator Finisterre (William H. Macy) is as incompetent as his aide whom he chides for being incompetent.

Nick's real nemesis, Heather Holloway (a stunningly-beautiful-as-always Katie Holmes) of the Washington Probe, who screws him(literally) and then screws him (not literally)

Nick's closest and equally unscrupulous friends (Maria Bello, Davis Koechner) who are his counterparts in the alcohol and firearms corporations

Jeff (Rob Lowe) as 'the man who invented product placement'

The movie does not take sides. It only has fun pitting characters, with lot to lose, against each other and laughs along with us. It is fresh, witty, intelligent and an hour-and-half well-spent.

Inception explained

(Read my previous blog for the movie review)

Nolan's laws of Inception:

First law:

Once an idea gets hold of your mind, it grows on by itself. The idea itself can be original or planted. The catch is, the idea should be simple enough not to attract attention from the planted mind, because if the mind realizes that it is not an original idea, it will fight/discard it.

Second law:

Dream time is slower than real time. Since multi-level dreams (dreams within dreams) are possible, the deeper the dream, the slower is its time and hence the longer it is.

Third law:

Dying in a dream causes one to wake up in the parent dream. However, dying in a dream cannot wake up a sedated dreamer; he gets lost in a "limbo"

A few definitions..

Limbo:

If a dream is deep enough, a few hours in real time can equate to decades in a dream. Such a long dream-state is called limbo.

A man waking up from such a dream would be physically young, but mentally very old. There are high chances of brain-death too.

(As the movie begins, a very aged Saito is rescued from limbo by Cobb, by convincing him to kill himself)

Projections:

When a dreamer enters a dream world, he fills it with his memories of objects and people. Memories of people are called projections. Projections always turn hostile if they recognize an intruder.

(Cobb's projection of his wife stabs the young architect, an intruder, in the dream)

Architect:

The one who creates the dream world. An architect always create huge, puzzling dream worlds to avoid encounters with the dreamer's projections.

Extractor:

The intruder who, along with the dreamer, enters the dream and solves the puzzle i.e. finds the hidden secret. Extractors should not to attract attention, or else they would be hunted down by projections. Their common trick is to act as one of the projections.

Forger:

One who can disguise himself in a dream as another person.

Cobb(Leonardo) tries to steal secrets from Saito's(Ken Watanabe) mind and fails. Saito however is impressed by Cobb's expertise and offers him a job to do inception on Fischer Jr.

Idea to be planted in Fischer Jr.'s mind : "My father wants me to break up the company"

But they should follow the First Law - one simple idea at a time.

First level dream :

Fischer Jr. is tricked into this dream on the the plane. In this dream, Cobb acts a kidnapper asking Fischer for his dad's locker key.

However Fischer Jr.'s mind is trained to fight extraction and hence Cobb and his team come under heavy attack.

Idea planted : Fischer's dad has hidden something in his locker.

Second level dream:

This dream within dream starts in the truck as they try to ecape in level-one. In this dream, Cobb acts approaches Fischer Jr. at a bar and convinces him that he is his protector against extractors. He wins his confidence by revealing to Fischer that they are in a dream meant to extract Fischer's secrets. Cobb also makes up a story that Fischer's godfather is behind this, by using the forger disguised as Fischer's godfather

Idea planted: Fischer's godfather does not want him to find out what is inside the locker.

Third level dream:

This dream within dream within dream starts in level-2 when Cobb convinces Fischer to enter his godfather's mind to find what is in the locker.

What Fischer does not realize is that he is actually entering the mind of the forger disguised as his godfather. Hence what Fischer finds in the dream - his dying father asking him not to follow his footsteps - is actually a lie.

Mal:

Cobb's wife who has spent over 50 years in limbo with Cobb, building and living in their dream world. She commits suicide when she wakes up in reality, believing that she would wake up in her dream world, which to her is the real one. She tries to force Cobb into following her by naming him the cause of her death.

Cobb's memories of her are of those trying to convince him to follow her to their dream world, hence in all of the dreams that Cobb enters, her projection always tries to sabotage the plan. This is also the reason why Cobb does not architect the dream world, because if he does, his wife too would know the solution to the puzzle.

Cobb, who is constantly plagued by guilt at having caused his wife's suicide, reveals that it is his inception on her that caused her to question her reality.

Totem keeps rotating in the end. It could mean any of these:

- the whole thing is a dream i.e. what we thought was a 3-level dream could actually be a 4-or-more-level dream.

- Nolan is winking at us or, the greedy producers want a sequel.

A more effective ending:

The only thing that Cobb believes absolutely is his totem. If his totem was somehow compromised, he would mistake himself to be in a dream and would have killed himself to wake-up - just like his wife did. This would have added a sense of irony and a degree of pathos to the story.