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.