Here Are the Most Exciting Scenes of Robo 2.0

2.0: 5 Scenes That Stood Out in Rajinikanth and Akshay Kumar's Visual Extravaganza (SPOILER ALERT)

2.0 Movie Posters (Photo Credits: YouTube)

Is 2.0 a good movie? Well, if you are purely watching the film to soak in Rajinikanth mass hysteria and special effects, then 2.0might not disappoint you. But if your definition of a good film goes beyond its technical values, then 2.0 falters big time. Dull in parts, and insipid in others, 2.0lacks the mass appeal of the Baahubaliseries and relies too much on the star-power of its lead actors. 2.0 is more than often a Rajinikanth show and the actor has fun playing not one, but four different roles! Akshay Kumar, meanwhile, takes his own sweet time to appear in person in 2.0, though his character manages to make an impact in a flashback scene.

While 2.0 may not be as much of a fun watch as its predecessor, it isn’t without its moments. Some of Shankar’s brilliance as a film-maker, coupled with Rajinikanth and Akshat Kumar’s performance and the movie’s reliance on the special effects do give rise to some memorable scenes in the film. They aren’t perfect, but they are exactly the reason why you are in the theatre watching the movie.

The title sequence is a tribute to both the film’s lead actor, Rajinikanth, as well as its 3D ambitions. Remember that IMAX 3D logo that appears at the start of any movie? 2.0 titles work just like that!

Chitti’s Intro

The first half of the film is too into Anniyan mode. It is only almost near the interval point when things began to spice up. Not only does Chitti make a whistle-worthy entry, I was also impressed with Akshay’s bird form. However, the fight scene feels something out of a Spider-Man, not very impressive.

The Villain’s Backstory

It is always good to have a sympathetic villain, just see Thanos or Killmonger for reference. The backstory for the villain in Chitty is just heart-rending. Not only are we given a proper glimpse of Akshay Kumar (as an old man), we also understand his special connection with birds and understand his hurt when the birds get affected by cell phone radiation. The backstory is a bit too long, but it is impactful enough. Too bad, that the rest of the movie ditches the sympathies to make him a one-note CGI villain.

The Second Big Fight Sequence

Easily the best action sequence of the film. Akshay Kumar’s character somehow takes control of Vaseegaran and then goes on a killing spree. Chitti arrives in to handle him, only to realise that he cannot control the villain without killing Vaseegaran. This is the only time when Akshay Kumar’s character has an upper hand over Rajinikanth’s, but then that’s again because he possessed another Rajinikanth character. The seamless transformation between Akshay and Rajini is so well done and deserves applause!

The stadium fight

The long big fight in the climax is a razzmatazz of CGI and bad puns! There is also a twist with the third version of Chitti turning in to defeat the villain. How he looks is something of a surprise!

Rajni’s 3.0 Special Appearance in 2.0

Rajinikanth’s 2.0 is the hottest topic of conversations and Thalaiva Day is going great for fans. His highly anticipated film, 2.0, finally hit the theatres today and fans can’t seem to stop admiring it. The film is already breaking records and even early morning shows are running houseful. For those of you who haven’t watched the film yet, there are spoilers ahead so watch out! In the second half of the film, Nila (played by Amy Jackson) revives the badass robot from the last film to fight Akshay Kumar in the film. Now this reloaded version of Chitti is super sleazy and will not even regret if he kills Vaseegara by mistake but he also has an evil plan of defeating the birdman, as Akshay is sometimes called in the movie.

It is during Akshay’s showdown with sleazy Chitti that they unleash mini-bots, who are basically tiny robots, who go on to saving the day. Now these mini-bots are the 3.0 version of Thalaiva. They can even change their shapes as and when required and tame birds/animals bigger than their size. Shankar had revealed to TOI a couple of days back that he would love to come with a 2.0 sequel and that he wants to start a Robot franchise in India.

But the director also added that the sequel will only happen if Thalaiva wants to be a part of it since there is no Chitti without him. Can’t say we don’t agree with him! Stay tuned with us for more scoop on 2.0.


Special Review On Highlighting Scenes of Robo 2.0

Special Appearance of 3.0 Rajni in 2.0

Samsung Galaxy A9 Comes With Four Rear Cameras

Samsung’s newest Galaxy A-series smartphone, the Galaxy A9 (2018), is now available for purchase in India. The Galaxy A9 was announced last week in the country as the world’s first smartphone with a quad-camera system. This is arguably the biggest highlight of the device, but the Galaxy A9 also offers a gradient colour design and a Snapdragon 660 chipset.

The new Galaxy A9’s price in India starts at Rs 36,990 for the 6GB + 128GB variant and Rs 39,990 for the 8GB + 128GB model. There exists some best 8 GB RAM Mobile models in India available under Samsung Brand. The Galaxy A9 can be bought online on Airtel’s online store, Amazon India, Samsung Shop, Paytm Mall and Flipkart. The base model of the Galaxy A9 is available right now, while the 8GB RAM model is up for pre-orders and will go on sale from December 4, 2018.

The Galaxy A9 sports a 6.3-inch FHD+ (1080×2160) Super AMOLED display with Always-On support. It is protected by glass on the front and back. One of the highlights of the design is the gradient colour theme on the rear panel that looks similar to phones like the Honor 10 and Huawei P20. This gradient design will be offered in Bubblegum Pink, Lemonade Blue. There is also a plain Caviar Black colour option as well.

Powering the Galaxy A9 is a 2.2GHz octa-core Snapdragon 660 chipset which is paired with up to 8GB of RAM. The phone is offered with 128GB of internal storage with support for expandability up to 512GB via microSD card. The device houses a 3,800mAh battery with fast charge support via USB Type-C. Unlike the Galaxy A7 (2018) which has a side fingerprint sensor, the Galaxy A9 gets a rear-mounted fingerprint sensor. The device also supports facial recognition as well.

The big USP here is the vertical quad-camera setup on the back. This system includes a 24MP main sensor with f/1.7 aperture, an 8MP 120-degree ultra wide-angle lens with f/2.4 aperture, a 10MP telephoto lens with 2x optical zoom and a 5MP depth sensor. Most of the sensors on board are similar to the recent Galaxy A7, with the only addition being the zoom lens. The Galaxy A9 (2018) also comes with a 24MP front-facing sensor that supports Selfie Focus mode.

The camera app will let you switch between the regular sensor to a wide angle sensor with just a tap or switch between 2X optical zoom lens and depth sensor without needing additional third-party accessories. So you can capture an ultra-wide panorama or a 2x macro shot, depending on your taste and the scene. The camera also gets an AI scene optimised feature that will recognise your environment and automatically adjust the setting to capture the best shot.


Galaxy A9 Launched With Four Rear Camera

Galaxy A9 Available Paytm Mall With Cashback Offers and Discount

Chinese Genetically Modified Babies Lulu and Nana

We said “don’t freak out,” when scientists first used Crispr to edit DNA in non-viable human embryos. When they tried it in embryos that could theoretically produce babies, we said “don’t panic.” Many years and years of boring bench science remain before anyone could even think about putting it near a woman’s uterus. Well, we might have been wrong. Permission to push the panic button granted.

Late Sunday night, a Chinese researcher stunned the world by claiming to have created the first human babies, a set of twins, with Crispr-edited DNA. “Two beautiful little Chinese girls, Lulu and Nana, came crying into the world as healthy as any other babies a few weeks ago,” the scientist, He Jiankui, said in the first of five promotional videos posted to YouTube hours after MIT Technology Review broke the news.


Lulu and Nana are reported to have a genetic mutation, courtesy of Crispr, that makes it harder for HIV to invade and infect their white blood cells. The claim, which has yet to be independently verified or backed up by published data, has ignited furious criticism, international outrage, and multiple investigations. The scientific outcry has been so swift because He’s purported work, conducted in secret, bulldozes past existing ethical guidance on so-called “germline editing,” in which alterations to an embryo’s DNA will be passed down to subsequent generations.

What’s perhaps most strange is not that He ignored global recommendations on conducting responsible Crispr research in humans. He also ignored his own advice to the world—guidelines that were published within hours of his transgression becoming public.

On Monday, He and his colleagues at Southern University of Science and Technology, in Shenzhen, published a set of draft ethical principles “to frame, guide, and restrict clinical applications that communities around the world can share and localize based on religious beliefs, culture, and public-health challenges.” Those principles included transparency and only performing the procedure when the risks are outweighed by serious medical need.

The piece appeared in the The Crispr Journal, a young publication dedicated to Crispr research, commentary, and debate. Rodolphe Barrangou, the journal’s editor in chief, where the peer-reviewed perspective appeared, says that the article was one of two that it had published recently addressing the ethical concerns of human germline editing, the other by a bioethicist at the University of North Carolina. Both papers’ authors had requested that their writing come out ahead of a major gene editing summit taking place this week in Hong Kong. When half-rumors of He’s covert work reached Barrangou over the weekend, his team discussed pulling the paper, but ultimately decided that there was nothing too solid to discredit it, based on the information available at the time.

One is transparency. Reporting by Tech Review and The Associated Press has raised questions about whether He misled trial participants and Chinese regulators in his ambitions to make the first Crispr’d baby. Two is medical necessity.

Take the gene He’s group chose to edit: CCR5. It codes for a receptor that HIV uses to infiltrate white blood cells, like a key to a locked door. No key, no access. Other controversial Crispr firsts have attempted to correct faulty versions of genes responsible for inherited, often incurable disorders, reverting them back to the healthy version. In contrast, He’s group crippled normal copies of CCR5 to lower the risk of future possible infection with HIV—a disease that is easily prevented, treated, and controlled by means that don’t involve forever changing someone’s DNA. Drugs, condoms, needle-exchange programs are all reasonable alternatives.

“There are all sorts of questions these issues raise, but the most fundamental is the risk-benefit ratio for the babies who are going to be born,” says Hank Greely, an ethicist at Stanford University. “And the risk-benefit ratio on this stinks. Any institutional review board that approved it should be disbanded if not jailed.”

Reporting by Stat indicates that He may have just gotten in over his head and tried to cram a self-guided ethics education into a few short months. The young scientist—records indicate He is just 34—has a background in biophysics, with stints studying in the US at Rice University and in bioengineer Stephen Quake’s lab at Stanford. His resume doesn’t read like someone steeped deeply in the nuances and ethics of human research. Barrangou says that came across in the many rounds of edits He’s framework went through. “The editorial team did spend a significant amount of time improving both the language and the content,” he says.

It’s too soon to say whether He’s stunt will bring him fame or just infamy. He’s still scheduled to speak at the human genome editing summit on Wednesday and Thursday. And China’s central government in Beijing has yet to come down one way or another. Condemnation would make He a rogue and a scientific outcast. Anything else opens the door for a Crispr IVF cottage industry to emerge in China and potentially elsewhere. “It’s hard to imagine this was the only group in the world doing this,” says Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher at UC Davis who wrote a book on the future of designer babies called GMO Sapiens. “Some might say this broke the ice. Will others forge ahead and go public with their results or stop what they’re doing and see how this plays out?”

What happens next makes all the difference. The fact that two babies now exist with one gene changed by Crispr to a less common form doesn’t change the world overnight. What changes the world is how society reacts, and whether it decides to let such DNA-altering procedures become common.

This move has triggered a flurry of backlash and concern in the scientific community. Using CRISPR to modify sperm, eggs or embryos is banned in the U.S. (besides in lab research), but it’s permitted in China. With this technology comes the risk of altering other genes that weren’t meant to be modified. When CRISPR is used to treat deadly diseases in adults, those changes are confined to the individual. But when it comes to embryos, those changes can be inherited by future generations. Even if the process goes smoothly, people with deficiencies in CCR5 are more susceptible to conditions like West Nile Virus and Japanese encephalitis. Some scientists also say He’s editing wasn’t complete. “Modifying human embryos at this stage in our understanding of biology is clearly unethical,” says Christopher Anderson, a bioengineering professor at UC Berkeley. “We do not yet understand the full biological consequences of these actions even in small animals.”



Wordl’s first Designer Babies