Project Hail Mary

There are films you watch, and then there are films that meet you exactly where you are.

I walked into Project Hail Mary carrying grief — missing Zack and Xena, already undone before the lights dimmed. And somehow, this film didn’t distract me from that emotional state; it held it, reframed it, and quietly gave it meaning.

Directed with clarity and emotional restraint by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, and adapted from Andy Weir’s novel, the film balances hard science with deeply human vulnerability. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is expansive yet intimate — vast cosmic emptiness contrasted with the fragile interiority of one man’s fear, doubt, and eventual courage.

At its centre is Ryan Gosling, who delivers a performance filled with quiet tremors. There is something strikingly vulnerable about him here — a softness, an openness — that makes you believe every hesitation, every flicker of resistance. He feels less like a conventional hero and more like an ordinary man dragged into extraordinary responsibility. At times, I found myself thinking of him as a kind of Hollywood Ranbir Kapoor — not in style, but in that emotional accessibility.

The Story & Its Emotional Core

The premise is deceptively simple: a microorganism — Astrophage — is draining energy from the sun, threatening life on Earth. Governments assemble a desperate scientific mission. Three astronauts are sent across the stars towards Tau Ceti, humanity’s last hope.

But what elevates the story is not the science — though it is fascinating — but the moral weight placed on an unwilling participant. Gosling’s Ryland Grace is not a man eager to sacrifice himself. He is a biology teacher, a reluctant participant, someone who cannot instinctively subscribe to the idea of “the greater good”.

And that tension — between obligation and personal truth — runs quietly beneath everything.

The Visuals & Special Effects

The special effects are nothing short of breathtaking.

The Tau Ceti sequences, particularly when Astrophage is released onto the planet to observe its behaviour, are mesmerising. There is a sense of scientific wonder rendered with almost poetic beauty — light, texture, and motion working together to create something both alien and believable.

But the most astonishing achievement is Rocky.

Rocky — an alien who, at first glance, resembles nothing more than a living rock — becomes one of the most expressive characters in the film. Through voice modulation, rhythmic sound patterns, and physical gestures, he communicates emotion, humour, loyalty, and intelligence. The voice work and sound design behind Rocky are extraordinary; they transform the unfamiliar into something deeply intimate.

Rocky: The Heart of the Film

Rocky is not a side character. He is the soul of the film.

Their friendship — built without a shared language, without shared biology — becomes a testament to connection beyond form. Rocky speaks of a partner of 186 years, and in that detail lies something profound: a quiet reflection on love, companionship, and endurance that transcends human frameworks.

There is no need to impose labels on it. It simply is love — steady, enduring, and unquestioned.

(Spoiler Alert: Ending Discussed Below)

What stayed with me even after the film ended was how its thematic core differs subtly from Project Hail Mary itself. Andy Weir’s writing has always leaned heavily into science as process — the joy of problem-solving, of intellect battling extinction, much like in The Martian. The novel is rooted in logic, in method, in the slow satisfaction of answers earned through persistence. Even Rocky, in the book, is as much a collaborator as a companion — a scientific equal with whom Grace builds trust through shared curiosity rather than emotional dependence. The idea of survival is intellectual, almost procedural.

The film, however, shifts that axis gently but decisively. It is less interested in how we solve the universe and more in why we choose to. The science remains, but it takes a back seat to something more fragile — connection. Rocky here becomes more than a collaborator; he becomes an emotional anchor, almost a quiet rebuttal to the chaos and cruelty we associate with humanity. And that is where the film resonated deeply with me. Where the novel asks whether intelligence and cooperation can save us, the film dares to ask whether love — even if it is for just one being — is reason enough to try.

The film’s most powerful turn lies in its moral reversal.

We learn that Grace did not heroically volunteer — he was coerced. Forced into the mission for the sake of humanity. And when faced again with a choice — to return to Earth as its saviour or to turn back and save Rocky — he chooses Rocky.

Not the abstract idea of billions.

Not the “greater good”.

But a singular, tangible bond.

And in that moment, the film quietly dismantles a long-standing cinematic myth — that heroism must always be self-sacrifice for humanity at large.

Instead, it suggests something far more intimate: that love, loyalty, and connection — even with one being — are enough.

Rocky, in turn, saves him. Builds him a home. Gives him a life.

And that reciprocity — that mutual choosing — feels like the truest form of humanity the film offers.

Final Thoughts

If I’m being critical, the script isn’t always tight. There are stretches where pacing wavers, and certain transitions feel less precise than they could be. But somehow, it doesn’t matter.

Because the film lands where it needs to.

Emotionally, it resonates.

And perhaps that is why it stayed with me.

Walking in, I felt a kind of exhaustion with humanity — with its violence, its cruelty, its endless justifications. And strangely, the film doesn’t argue against that feeling. It doesn’t glorify humanity blindly.

Instead, it finds redemption in something smaller.

More honest.

One bond. One choice. One act of love.

And for me, that is enough.

Superman

Light Restored: David Corenswet’s Superman Shines

I went to the first-night late showing of Superman with zero expectations—especially not expecting anything from star David Corenswet. But from the very opening, the film radiates light in a way Henry Cavill’s brooding take simply never did. Cavill’s Superman was relentless, vicious, bleak—more dark Batman than hopeful beacon. Corenswet, on the other hand, embodies everything good Superman should be: optimism, warmth, light.

From the start, the film introduces Superman at his most vulnerable—hurt, uncertain—and brings in Krypto, his loyal super‑dog, at just the right moment. Krypto’s entrance is delightful: “the canine sidekick steals the show, and his goofy interactions with Superman will resonate with anyone who loves dogs”. It was a moment that brought me—and, I suspect, dog lovers everywhere—to tears of joy.

Corenswet as Clark Kent / Superman reminds us of a young Christopher Reeve: dimpled, earnest, charming. He truly “soars as the Man of Steel”  , balancing vulnerability with heroism, sunlit goodness with real human emotion. As one review put it: “David Corenswet is just right for the dual role”.

Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor brings a modern tech‑tycoon je ne sais quoi—smart, menacing, magnetic. Many critics praised his turn, though some felt his performance didn’t match Gene Hackman’s classic menace.

The supporting cast includes: Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane: vibrant, sharp, independent. Critics say their chemistry is one of the best since Margot Kidder. Jimmy Olsen – Skyler Gisondo. Guy Gardner / Green Lantern – Nathan Fillion – is always a pleasure to watch. I couldn’t help remember him in Firefly. He’s back to his forté. Hawkgirl – Isabela Merced – brought in that element of darkness whereas Mister Terrific – Edi Gathegi – was indeed terrific. I liked the inclusion of Metamorpho (substance-shifter) – Anthony Carrigan – it brought in someone we hadn’t seen in the DC verse so far. These characters, dubbed the “Justice Gang” in a nod to the Justice League, provide depth and interactivity— and though some critics found the ensemble slightly overloaded – for me, it was just right. 

Director James Gunn steers Superman away from darkness. Thankfully! The film bursts with colour, lightheartedness, and earnest hope—exactly what the genre needed, described as a “colourful, breezy reinvention”. One critic noted the tone rejects “grim and gritty” in favour of “empathy… a radical tenderness over traditional machismo”.

The story skips a long origin arc and jumps into Clark’s life as a reporter and a hero. The film is tight, fast-paced, and brings back the classic John Williams–inspired trumpet theme—rejuvenating that sense of nostalgia I felt as a child growing up with Reeve.

Yes, there are a few hiccups: Some plot lines feel overcrowded—global politics, misinformation, and pocket-dimension mayhem. And let’s not forget the white man protecting the brown population from imperialists is an age old-trope that doesn’t sit well with me but even the CGI quality varies, especially in later action scenes.

Despite the missteps, Superman is an earnest, uplifting ride. It’s a heartfelt tribute to the Christopher Reeve era—sunlit, moral, full of hope. As one critic said: “I went into ‘Superman’ with low expectations… this reboot… is infused with heart, humour and a fresh optimism that the franchise desperately needed”.

So, if you’re longing for the Superman of light and goodness—not darkness and cynicism—this Superman is your film. It wants us to believe again—and it succeeds. This Superman is light reborn: hopeful, sincere, and undeniably fun. If you’re tired of the brooding, Nolan‑style heroes, let Corenswet’s Superman carry you back into the sun.

Adolescence

When I watched Adolescence, I couldn’t stop thinking about the themes that run through the show—bullying, toxic masculinity, social media radicalization, and the collapse of authority in today’s world. But what unsettled me the most was how difficult it is to pinpoint Jamie’s true motive.

Jamie isn’t just an aggressor—he’s also a boy who’s humiliated, rejected, and stripped of his dignity online. Katie turns him down, but that alone isn’t what breaks him—it’s what follows. She and her friends publicly emasculate him, using coded digital language that adults wouldn’t even recognize as bullying. They flood his Instagram with:

    •    “📉” (chart decreasing) → Suggesting he’s losing status, becoming irrelevant.

    •    “🌽” (corn emoji) → A veiled insult implying he’s pathetic or embarrassing.

    •    “🪑” (chair emoji) → Originally a meme, now used to call someone a loser.

    •    “🤡” (clown emoji) → Mocking him as a joke, a failure.

    •    ”#4473” → A number code in the show that essentially brands him as an incel.

This isn’t just name-calling—it’s a calculated digital assault, designed to socially destroy someone without leaving direct proof of bullying. Gen Alpha doesn’t need slurs anymore; they weaponize the very structure of the internet to erase someone’s worth. And Jamie? He internalizes it. But does this alone explain his descent into violence?

So is Jamie a Budding Psychopath or a Product of His Environment? I struggled with this question, just like the detective in the show. I was bullied too. I know what it’s like to be humiliated, to feel powerless. But I didn’t turn into a psychopath. Maybe that’s because, despite everything, I had a loving family to balance out the pain. Jamie had his mother. He had Eddie, his father, who—though strict and temperamental—never abused him, never stopped loving him. So what went wrong?

Psychologically, Jamie displays classic traits of conduct disorder and early psychopathy:

    •    Lack of empathy – He doesn’t react to the suffering of others.

    •    Emotional detachment – Even in high-stress situations, his expressions remain eerily controlled.

    •    Manipulative tendencies – He learns to adapt, charm, and deceive when needed.

    •    Entitlement and resentment – His frustration at rejection doesn’t lead to self-reflection but rather a belief that he must regain control.

But Adolescence refuses to give us an easy answer. Maybe Jamie was always inclined toward violence, and the bullying only accelerated what was already there. Maybe he was looking for an excuse. Or maybe he’s what happens when a system allows boys like him to slip through the cracks until it’s too late.

A key theme in Adolescence is the failure of authority figures—parents, teachers, even psychologists—to intervene before things spiral out of control. One of the most striking moments is when the psychologist in Episode 3 is visibly afraid of Jamie. This isn’t just a child with anger issues—this is a boy who understands the power he holds over others and enjoys wielding it.

There’s also a generational shift at play. In Episode 2, we see students openly mocking and disrespecting their teacher without consequence. It’s not just about kids lacking fear—it’s about the absence of structure, discipline, and moral guidance. When you combine this with unregulated access to toxic online figures, the result is kids shaping their worldviews based on whoever speaks the loudest.

And this is where the show forces us to confront something deeply uncomfortable. Jamie’s radicalization isn’t just a personal failure—it’s a collective one.

Beyond its themes, Adolescence is a technical masterpiece. Each episode is filmed in one continuous shot, meaning there are no visible cuts—just an unrelenting, immersive experience that traps you in the characters’ world. The sheer amount of planning and execution that must have gone into this is mind-blowing.

Owen Cooper (Jamie) is phenomenal. His ability to shift between vulnerability and cold detachment is chilling, and watching his transformation feels disturbingly real. Stephen Graham (Jamie’s father, Eddie) delivers a gut-wrenching performance, portraying a man who knows he failed his son but doesn’t know how to fix it. The psychologist in Episode 3 is also haunting—seeing an adult woman visibly shaken by a 13-year-old boy speaks volumes about how dangerous Jamie has become.

Adolescence isn’t just about one boy’s descent into violence—it’s about what happens when we ignore the warning signs. It’s about how social media radicalizes young men, how modern bullying has evolved into something almost undetectable, and how the collapse of authority leaves kids to raise themselves in digital echo chambers.

Was Jamie always destined for this path? Or was he a product of his environment? That’s the disturbing question the show leaves us with.

One thing is certain—Adolescence is not an easy watch. But maybe that’s exactly why it needs to be seen.