Large Framed Seating Charts

'No identity', a model and exciting thirller

There are hundreds of films with a protagonist who doubt their identity, which has everything against him and he finds unexpected allies on the way to carry out a mission that did not expect to play. A scheme that have recently played great as Scorsese ( Shutter Island) and Polanski (writer ). And occasionally there are some titles that stand out in this hackneyed genre. No identity is one of them. We are not talking, obviously, With North by Northwest, but no shots are very misguided if you think a reference to thematic and narrative identity No, the last English film director based in Hollywood Jaume Collet-Serra. With a fast pace, a correct and tight script, and an exceptional cast headed by Liam Neeson always superb, Collet-Serra offers an exemplary thriller that entertains from first to last scene with both offering onscreen as maintaining the viewer busy trying to discern the secrets hidden in the plot. And with a great car chase scene.

It tends to have too much of these films, gutting much of the storyline soon. If the movie is meant to go slowly revealing the information, why burst it from the beginning your synopsis? The story begins in Berlin, a city that gets a marriage. He is to attend a scientific conference. From it we know nothing else is there to accompany her husband. How it triggers the plot is something worth discovering on the big screen. From there, which raises No identity is just what its title suggests (Unknown is added), what can a man do to solve a mystery about him in a strange city without documentation, no friends, no one who can confirm that is who they claim to be, with everything against him. The question between the reality on the one hand and the dream and fantasy for another over the film for much of his footage, but not the real engine Without identity, as the mystery is, in essence, simple. There is nothing in the film that would suggest that cheating. Just a story that unfolds. And very well indeed.

This is because the deal is believed to complete the story as much as the writer (an almost unknown Oliver Butcher) and its director, may seem bizarre at times and the typical small errors that the most fastidious always used to detract from the many successes of a film. Liam Neeson is a great actor and has enough charisma to sustain itself any project he pleases. Has the qualities to look strong and almost helpless with a single plane change, and that makes him perfect for this role. Diane Kruger and January Jones gives the female reply, and while the former seems to be improving with time (his first major role was Troy, which was rather cold and showing only be a beautiful mannequin), January Jones (a which we shall see in X-Men. First generation) is perhaps the weakest aspect of no identity. His character is the most deslabazado, which concentrate the biggest holes in the script and it prevents you from stress. Aidan Quinn and Frank Langella embroider their brief roles, even shorter in the case of Langella. The first is a actorazo who excelled for years and has been too long gone. The second is a feast for the eyes and ears.

But if the cast has Hollwyood these great names, we must not detract from European actors who are part of the film, led by Sebastian Koch (The Lives of Others) and Bruno Ganz (Downfall's Hitler.) All of them give a special luster to this movie, which is capable of maintaining the suspense and excitement during their nearly two hours of footage. It has hot spots, such as the splendid car chase through the streets of Berlin (the best ever seen in commercial cinema of the past years outstanding from all points of view), and the script knows how to move with enough skill among the lowest moments of narrative rhythm, not tired, but act as moments of peace before unleashing of this frenetic new march of history that makes the film well. Because there is no confusion, no job and a very good job of assembly. That is an added merit in this genre, usually cheat the audience or the camera shakes too much special effects and end up losing sight of the narrative.

The truth is that identity Sin is a surprise, a very pleasant surprise, because it comes from a director who seemed to specialize, almost typecast in horror films, after House of Wax and Orphan and more than curious break in his films which is a movie like Goal! 2 . The name of Collet-Serra wins a lot with identity No, because the thriller is a genre that Avusa of repetition and the routine and this film suffers none of these two defects. On the contrary, is a very entertaining story progresses naturally and away from those fireworks that usually offer directors (and producers) with a much more established reputation in the world of cinema. And on top of the opportunity to stick the pleasure of seeing a splendid cast, Without identity becomes one of those movies worth seeing. A notable great pleasure.

Bench Fix Salon Haircut Prices

more positives than negatives for a remarkable and entertaining 'Thor'

Neither Shakespearean top superhero movies nor the disaster that some had hoped and wanted to see. Thor is a remarkable adventure movie, a good adaptation of the Marvel comic book and an interesting exercise in style by Kenneth Branagh. It has lights and shadows in the script, also in the casting. Many more light on the visual aspect, but rather distorts the 3D final result. In any case, the assessment is very positive, because Branagh joins an entertaining cocktail of adventure and fantasy that leaves you wanting more. More than Thor, Asgard over and over, especially the Avengers (the senseless mania for running out of the room almost before the film ends, regardless of blatantly bother other viewers, makes most of which have paid an entry miss a final scene at the end of the credits.) And if the feeling is to want more, the conclusion is that the aftertaste that leaves Thor is sweet and pleasant, which leads to forgive the faults it has. At the end of the day, its mission is to entertain.

Thor is the god of thunder in Norse mythology, suitably adapted to the universe Marvel and Stan Lee (another great cameo his attentive to the truck trying to lift the hammer), Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby large. Its film adaptation could only be done with generous doses of grandeur. Asgard, home of the gods, is in all its splendor and the great success of the film to focus the beginning of history there, in the fantasy realms of this mythology. The easy way, and obviously much cheaper to shoot, it would be so many other fictional characters have followed, send them directly to our Earth to exploit the comic virtues of a strange place in the world we know. But Thor bet the other way and provides about three-quarters initial time filled with action and special effects, visually fantastic (although in some cases comparisons with The Lord of the Rings are inevitable ... and always in favor of the saga yet surpassed Peter Jackson) and narratively interesting. This is where Thor is the haughty, ambitious and warlike, well run by a limited actor, Chris Hemsworth, but visually it is perfect.

In this installment of the film, after a magnificent prologue (and a superfluous opening scene), is where the best of Thor. His relationship with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), the balance of peace between the realms of Asgard and Jotunheim (ruled by the giants of ice), his friendship with the Lady Sif (Jaimie Alexander, has anyone thought it could be heroin Hollywood finally allowed to make a fantasy movie with a woman protagonist?) and the three warriors, Volstagg, Fandral and Hogun (Ray Stevenseon, Josh Dallas and Tadanobu Asano), and the vision of the rainbow bridge that connects the Nine Kingdoms and the custodial guardian, Heimdall (splendid character and superb characterization, although the choice of Idris Elba, a black actor to portray a Norse god as an anecdote was stayed, and got absurd attempt to speak of the film long before its release). View visual splendor is achieved in this section, the appropriate level of brutality in the struggles and passion in the portrayal of characters and environments do yearn for a future sequel in which narrate the stage in the comic book was Walter Simonson Thor to visit the kingdom of Hel (the Norse equivalent of hell), ruled by Hela.

With the arrival on the scene of Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), the tone of the film is lowered and it becomes funny. Funny rightly, of course, but more slowly. The love story was not only inevitable, but also grateful, because it gives more meaning to the evolution of Thor. But there is where you begin to notice the shortcomings of the script of the film. Introducing too many elements in two hours of film usually leads to some are hopelessly blurred, and this is evident in the battle between Thor and the Destroyer (a magical giant metallic appearance that shoots a powerful rays from the face.) It distorts so easily to the other Asgardians that hard to believe there is no measure of the heroísimo Thor and the supposedly invincible opponent. Similarly, it is absurd to transform Jane Foster from the nurse who is in the comic to the scientist who is in the movie (sad payment of which are politically correct times) and this aspect is perhaps the most tenuous of the plot, thanks to Natalie Portman does not stand out on paper as well. Also ends up being weak portrait of Loki, whose motivations are too in the air and distort what had only been targeted in the first two installments of the film.

In the visual, fantasy in general (and Thor is the world doing what makes him a valued character in the comic), we can only make two criticisms. One, as usual, is the 3D, too dark a film that cries out to be light to do justice to the work of its designers. Another, Branagh, while triumphs with risky levels diagonal, you lose too much on the fights. Domina great special effects, and that has merit taking into account his films so far away from this field, but the battle choreography are sometimes lost as in many other action movies (there will always be the brilliant music of his Inseperable composer, Patrick Doyle). Branagh, in any case, manages to give consistency to the final outcome and emerge triumphant. The same criticism that made him almost at its inception as the new Orson Welles now enjoys criticizing everything he does (although with less intensity, reminiscent of the phenomenon who suffers M. Night Shyamalan), but there is no reason. Thor works and fits in film Branagh's because, although sometimes it is on the surface, the Shakespearean tragedy is a key element in this saga of Norse gods and their relationship with humans.

mentioned before that final scene, which is best not to reveal more details so as not to spoil the surprise, the film concludes with a message: "Thor returns in The Avengers," which inevitably sparks the desire of the fan. Something else to look at Thor to better understand the combination of this movie in this magnificently drawn cinematorgáfico Marvel Universe? Obviously, the presence of SHIELD Agent Coulson (who appeared in two installments of Iron Man ), but also the screen debut, just a cameo, Hawk Eye (Jeremy Renner), the question of whether the same scene hides something else and the mention of Stark (Tony Stark, the man under the armor Iron Man). Marvel continues to add and there is still a chapter, Captain America, before the final explosion of the characters on the big screen with The Avengers . For that we have to wait until May next year. And given the high level of Iron Man sequel and of The Incredible Hulk and Thor now, we can only expect the best of the film which is already turning Joss Whedon.

Mario Salieri Dvd Online

'The Legion of the Eagle', decent and disconcerting

Eagle The Legion is a decent film so unnerving. It is a film of Romans, because Rome does not appear and we see only centurions in the first half of the film. It is an adventure film to use, it is more thoughtful and careful than is usually normal, not too many action scenes in reality and is rhythmic fluctuations. It is a film of actors, as there is a clear imbalance between cast members, some very interesting and others, most lacking relevance and chemistry. You do not have the strength of other films of its director, Kevin Macdonald, but some interesting notes. And not a movie to leave a glorious taste like Gladiator , but not negative as Centurion. So in the end the thing is that it is an entertaining film, with some positive aspects, but do not go down in history and revitalize the genre of Romans, which is still a love and I can not since more than a decade Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe will take you to the modern.

The danger of deception is undeniable when you sell something that's really not. And The Legion of the Eagle is not a Roman film. At least, not one to use. Ie Romans displayed, but Rome was not. The film has two very clear parts. In the first, Marcus Aquila (a sosísimo Channing Tatum) tries to earn the respect of their own in a place in Britain occupied by the Empire, though weighed down by the misfortune of being the son of a Roman soldier who disappeared with the prized golden eagle of the Ninth (which gives the film its title in Spain) and is rumored to be a traitor. In the second part, and after being away from the army for reasons we should see on the screen, is introduced with his slave Esca (a much more interesting Jamie Bell) into enemy territory to find the eagle and know what became of her father. If it is the first part of Romans, the second is easily interchangeable with any other movie medieval swords or of alien cultures. Lack narrative and visual coherence to the film succeed.

The first half of the film rises above the average for similar titles have been in recent years (Roman or otherwise) as mentioned Centurion or King Arthur . Segment is a good shot and very smart. Shame not to have a protagonist with more charisma. Or have surrounded the better. For Donald Sutherland, destined to become one of the names of the film, is formed with a secondary role and rather inane, which simply wanders around the screen without finding a real reason you're in it. Bell, however, it offers everything interesting that has a narrative film. His slave character gradually gains the trust of his master is pretty cliché, but knows how to do theirs. Sure with a few inches and a good physical workout, Bell could have done a better player than Tatum. Neither the usually fascinating Mark Strong (hard even recognize) get to lift the second half of the movie with a confusing and diffuse character.

The drop rate accusing the film after the battle at the gates of the Roman position is enormous. The misuse of time and ellipses from there, a pity. And yet, the director of the film and offered in their previous two works ( of Play and The Last King of Scotland ) two notable examples of how to lead a good story. It is true that in those two titles had a strong support in the distribution here, unfortunately, it fails. In any case, yes there are some interesting notes in both parts of the film, which is what makes that interest is maintained despite the flaws of the narrative. Entertaining but not excited. His action scenes (the aforementioned attack and the final climax, once accepted the unlikely turn of the forces equals liza) are effective. Some dialogues, more than interesting. But the set is flagging. We will continue waiting for the film recover the lost splendor Romans, but at least we have products like this to get something to eat.

Hidden Blade Blue Brints

Right 'Invasion Earth'

After the fiasco that meant Skyline , all eyes were on Invasion Earth (the English title disastrous Battle: Los Angeles , what you see in the film it say the original and not translated). And although it is a fun right, not the film becomes wanted to be. They said it should become a cross between Independence Day (assuming that picking the best of course) and Black Hawk Down . That is, the war in its purest form but as an enemy alien. And it is only in part, because it entertains entertain themselves, if one is able to forget their many topics, but does not reach the rawness and realism you expect. In this way, it stays in one more film about alien invasion, far below the level of the great classics of the genre of Nos 50 and 60 (and, why not say the undervalued The War of the Worlds Steven Spielberg), but as a good example of what an invasion would be seen only from the standpoint of the army ... American, of course.

This is perhaps the greatest contribution Invasion Earth, the military standpoint. It is true that some films featured in the genus (eg, the same Independence Day), but so far no unique view of the conflict as told. Everything they see, feel and live the American marines, to the point that no information is provided on a visually interesting aliens, but due to this approach, little developed. The Marines themselves have been actors in a thousand movies, so we are led to see clichés. The Marine about to retire, the Marine who lost a brother in the battlefield and blames his boss, the Marine who risks everything to save the civilians, the Marine patriot who does everything he can for his country, Marine who always played hard Michelle Rodriguez ("continuing his role in Avatar ?)... Everything is here. In fact, there are many criticisms that have been primed in this film, as a recruitment brochure of the Marines (it is), and that contaminates exacerbated criticism often made to a product of American patriotic exaltation.

There is, it is absurd to deny it, because This episode of war with aliens invaded many cities but only see Los Angeles. But does not have to bother much. That is, if Spain was a world power in this film entertainment (it is, just in case you have to clear it), surely there would be many genre films set in Spain. The power is the United States, then the stars without having to involve an element against. There is no narrative or visual problems resulting from this fact. But annoying. Curious. Who is not offended by the absolute role of the Marines, may come to feel entertained by this movie, that after all is the only objective. The big problem with, say, is in the topics that the situations we have already seen, there is not much risk in any field or in history or in the form of shoot. The script offers little new evidence and even misses some characters (the Monyahan Bridget and Michael Peña, undoubtedly).

Best of Invasion Earth, besides the usual scenes of destruction on a large scale (which, despite everything and probably for budgetary reasons, low-craving, there is too much debris and little insight into how buildings crumble, too little consequence and great show), is Aaron Eckhart. Rarely is one to one actor so dedicated to a science fiction movie as is the case here. Many argue that the green screen distracts them, many do not take seriously the stories that star. Eckhart, who would have been the real revelation of The Dark Knight if the grand performance and the death of Heath Ledger would not have eclipsed in part, is a superb actor who is cast behind the movie with ease and commendable professionalism. With him, the topics do not have and forget, because he does everything he does credible on screen.

Of course, the film leaves the usual open-ended, which partly further limiting its scope as a product. It's the battle of Los Angeles, yes, but if it succeeds, we can stretch one or two more films also OK to leave half the story. To that end, something sharp, the fact is that Earth Invasion fulfills its mission, the rightly occupy almost two hours from the time of the viewer. It is not the definitive film about alien invasions, but a more than decent and sincere attempt to create a film of entertainment and visual effects. Just been working and, in case anyone wants to compare, is infinitely better than that product called Skyline (do not forget that at the premiere of that attempted put in a sack like both films because the directors of Skyline , the nefarious brothers Strause, were accused of plagiarism by working on the design of visual effects Invasion Earth). If anyone expected something else, and that is caused, who tries to sell as more of what is sure to be a disappointment.