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.

Can I Get A Replacement Ih8 Remote

'Little Red Riding Hood', failed reinvention

's reinvention of classic (and not so classic) is on the agenda and the concept, by itself, does not have to be negative. However, not understanding the material that is reinventing itself may produce failed results. Riding Hood Red is, unfortunately, a good example of this phenomenon. The classic tale by Charles Perrault popularized by the Brothers Grimm first and then is turned into an intrigue of love and murder, all mixed with werewolves and priests able to combat the threat of lycanthropy, translating these into a script full of topics at all levels: in the individual characters in the love triangle, the supposed savior of the people and how other characters react to him and even in solving the mystery. That leads to an end more than expected, although the film's director, Catherine Hardwicke (Twilight responsible, and that is but a clear signal of what it offers Little Red Riding Hood) to work towards truffles footage with false leads and unresolved issues.

Use the title of Little Red Riding Hood is as an excuse to ensure the inevitable task of marketing the cinema than as a basis for the movie plot. Forget the classic tale, this will help avoid disappointment and odious comparisons, and parts of the story here says. Valerie is in love with a child of a woodcutter named Peter and wants to marry him, but his family has decided to wed someone much richer, the village blacksmith's son, Henry. In this context, there is a murder that the villagers blame the wolf, a creature that is said was two decades without attacking through the offerings they made but now is back. We have the wolf in the story, here, we discover immediately, is a werewolf than a wolf. To combat it, comes to town the Father Solomon, a famous enemy of witches and demons. The setting of the village and the forest is undoubtedly the best of Little Red Riding Hood . Is the most accomplished and, that in quotes, the best character in the film.

, however, remains untapped because there ianterés to generate a horror story (although that the theme of the film is "Who are you afraid?") and Hardwicke focus is on characters who either fail or pass, starting with the protagonist, a beautiful but cold image. Amanda Seyfried is Little Red Riding Hood, Valerie indeed (becomes, in fact, Little Red Riding Hood with a poor plot twist and forced, as forced as the reason for returning to dress for much of the footage), and its interpretation is highly implausible. It brings sparkle to the classic image of innocence of the character, not sexuality that needs to clear the love triangle that puts Hardwicke and does not appear too comfortable with the special effects that move around (Her face to face confrontation. There is much to scratch his character, although on paper had many more possibilities you see in the film (eg the same epilogue would have been a most daring and courageous film even further alloy of Little Red Riding Hood myth ).

Gary Oldman, Julie Christie and Virginia Madsen are called to give a touch of class to the film. They're both great actors, but none seem to believe at all their papers. Christie gives life the grandmother's story, and it is intended precisely to establish a link between the classic story and this film, but more likely the chosen scene to carry out this mission causes laughter in the audience. Madsen is perhaps the most exciting character in the film, as Oldman unleashes the histrionics that characterized some of his previous characters, but raises the level of entertainment, too topical. Unfortunately, like most things in Red Riding Hood. Even if someone is so long in the theater room you see the movie, the final shock after the credits, which is also coming. Lukas Haas plays the local priest and is surely at least the topic of the film. Unfortunately, his character remains largely untapped and only appears in a film that does not changes from a youthful fun.

If this scheme with reference to Twilight is inevitable, it also seems to be a less expected of the forest . Not the quality of the film, because of M Night Shyamalan is a disturbing tale and very well orchestrated, well away from the failed proposal Red Riding Hood, but for the environment in which Hardwicke put the mystery of this story. The mystery is, of course, know who and why the wolf kills. It is a mystery that is not well taken. Apart from the predictable or not likely to be the resolution (for me it was), the development is awkward and tricky. The movie is not honest does not have everything you would need to have too many things and has the sole purpose of confusing the viewer. Much noise and little history in much of what is counted, which results in the elimination of some meaningless characters that appear to have no importance and influence of others who do may have given much play. Little Red Riding Hood is a mistaken translation of a classic tale that can be visually satisfying, but provides no narrative level too.

Mera Naam Jokar Hot Movies

story 'I'm number four' and yet another beginning of a fantastic saga

There are fields in which it can be stated categorically that Hollywood has run out of ideas. 'm the number four is the demonstration that the stuff of science fiction or fantasy and juvenile court are all equal. The same characters, same problems, the same development, the same enemies ... and the same claim that the adaptation of the book is the first chapter of his stories involve the beginning of a long and successful series of films. Is the price you pay for the success of franchises like Harry Potter or Twilight. A price that has made many films and is apparently identical to that I'm number four. From that, without being anything special other are more pronounced as Ga'Hoole. The legend of the Guardians Eragon or , until the horrible as The Golden Compass, through the inane as or Jumper The Chronicles of Narnia (the fiasco that is the third installment obligation to put here.) It all sounds so similar. 'm number four is more science fiction than fantasy, but the base is the same. Handsome young boys face the supposed mission of their lives with an open end. Well worth it.

And the bad thing is that this is not another example of science fiction, but is that always so bored that similar traffic along different paths, far, far away from the river of imagination that showed the same gender in those distant years yearned and 80. I said that number four was a kind of Twilight of science fiction. Without having gone through the romantic-vampire saga lycanthropic me up so little interest, I think it is quite probable that these views are correct. So, why this has been successful and it does not (in the U.S. have earned less than your budget, although the international market investment saves some slack)? Hard to say. Perhaps the players have not prompted the same fervor in fans, perhaps there has been no material time that the literary saga accumulate so many fans (want to be a series of six books, first published in 2010 and the second will be released this summer, the rights to the film were bought even before one could buy the book). There is talk of sequel, but it is still a premature discussion. Hollywood.

The big problem I'm having number four is that it has things like we have to know them without explanation. What I do mind is that we're going to see the epic of nine young aliens who have fled from extinction at the hands of a violent and dangerous race from another planet and are hiding on Earth as normal people and under the protection of a guardian. We do not have names, just numbers. We know they are dying in order. And obviously, we know that the first three have already died, because otherwise we would have a problem with the title and numbering of the protagonist. "The order is good for something? We do not know. What good are the marks on the leg that will occur at number four with the death of their companions? We do not know. Where the hell out this dog and why? We do not know. Why have taken years to kill the first two and only a few days to find the third and fourth? We do not know. Why the hell the guardian does not seem to know anything anything until it is not much? We do not know. The film moves blindly through a very simple reason: no one knows where the story goes, because not even been published. It seems silly, but it is not.

Da whole feeling that I number four film is a photocopy of I book number four, as with all these sagas already mentioned. Hollywood does not want to risk with these films at all (if there is a story that had potential is the number six, not that of this number four). And seeing this show, one wonders why there is no greater courage and greater adaptation work. This film was crying out for an impressive introduction, full of special effects here are only for the final climax and laid the foundations for a good sci-fi saga. We do not, and so the film is from the beginning in a routine attempt to make money with some success and with some force in the development of the last half hour, all you really have interest after a very long (and inconceivable times naive) time is introduced (which is a painful epilogue just before the final battle in which the main couple, pursued by half a dozen alien murderers and their lives danger ... go to a school to disclose a roll of film to strengthen how much you want).

That all follow a predetermined basis is logical if we consider that there are no big names in the project. The most important is Michael Bay, who acts as producer (and, sure, it's who has led to explode things down on his films as director, I must say). DJ Caruso directs, director of Lives with Angelina Jolie and Disturbia Eagle Eye with Shia LaBeouf , and it does a very impersonal. The actors meet what is expected of them, which look attractive and handsome (as are) doing nothing unusual (do not). That is, Alex Pettyfer and Dianna Agron are more of the same guys who aspire to be photogenic actors. All have limited experience and only Teresa Palmer (number six) has had some impact with the childish The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Not much. The character of guardian rests Timothy Oliphant (the villain of Die Hard 4.0 ), and clearly required an actor of greater charisma and fame to the film to have a certain aura of prestige that never comes to achieving although quite entertaining at times.

best is in the end, in that fight on several fronts, well shot and well developed, even well resolved (except for the final detail of the dog or the epilogue buenrollista impossible to believe). It's one more, one like any other, to spend more or less pleasant ratillo and never leave any dregs. Nothing new on the horizon, but nothing too terrible to rant out of the cinema. Yourselves.

Can You Use Lanolin On Dog's Nipples

youth 'Blind Fury', the bad ... the fun

say that Nicolas Cage has spent years in the doldrums is nothing new. In fact, it was never gifted for this performance. But it's still a guy who continues to make films. Many. And usually pretty bad, of course (no more to remember their last two The Sorcerer's Apprentice and witches in time). I do not know how or why, but still convincing producers and directors to be given the prominence of his films. Blind Fury is the ultimate. Nicolas Cage And if we add a dash crazy, a phrase memorably horrific, a tone of parody within the parody itself, a 3D shooting children, the cute blond girl minifaldera usual, the protagonist topicazo of surly-but-for-good -heart, a touch of fantasy and lots and lots and lots of wild and uncontrolled action ... it remains so bad that the strength sports. Because, make no mistake, Blind Fury is a bad movie. Very bad. But as you know it is truly beyond the border of laughter and entertainment with amazing ease.

And anyone who tries to find something sensible Blind Fury takes really clear. Already in the first scene are exposed the pretensions of the film. If you do not pilláis grace, if you do not think at least "go frikadas Martian now this guy has done" with a smile, leave it, this is not your movie, because there are 100 minutes in the same tone. Nicolas Cage's own it is almost a parody of itself, the action hero who for years has worked to interpret. Verle garb to the Terminator (topped with the inevitable sunglasses and a blond toupee ...) wakes up and hilarity. But add to his first appearance a 3D topic of bullets directed at the camera and shotgun barrels that seek to exceed the screen and invade the stalls is the shot you need to prepare this introduction: Blind Fury going to be a chaos, that's the thought that the scene required a priori and a surreal prologue wake. Then it turns out that the prologue is explained, as we are not only before a delirious action movie, but it is a fantasy tale joyously absurd.

clarify these assumptions, failure to submit the inevitable: the blonde who accompany Nicolas Cage during the whole film, sometimes with a very short jeans, sometimes with a complete cowboy set, always with a very low-necked white shirt, sometimes with braces, sometimes covered by a jacket but always so impossible to spot as the face of the beautiful actress to have marks of the wounds of the many fights that are just getting into. Actress Amber Heard is chosen, a model that still looks beautiful film that put his picture on the more web pages better and so far had only known for playing the same character that Charlize Theron young North Country. When her character, Piper, says that the "fucking devil worshipers" one does not know if it is immersed in the surreal world of The Big Lebowski or if, conversely, is attending this festival fireworks, erotic and run riot. The fact is that every time it jumps a phrase as memorable as the previous one, laughter is inevitable. Is that what you were looking for the perpetrators of the movie? One can only think so, so, for his sincerity, almost deserve applause.

The director and writer of this (if, again, will see the humor appropriate) outrage is hilarious Patrick Lussier, editor a handful of movies from the 90, including the saga Scream and Dracula 2001 director , White Noise 2 or A Bloody Valentine. Dubious credentials. His way of shooting was close to that of any other. Much noise, many explosions, slow motion planes scattered here and there. More or less as usual. And so everything is in the hands of grace that might raise your script and the charisma of the actors. And if Nicolas Cage has something, even to hate him, the truth is that the master of this movie, with permission from Amber Heard and his fight against another woman naked in the street (yes, as is), William Fitchner is a very common side's last appearance was featured in the opening scene of The Dark Knight. He, better than anyone, understands the nonsense tone that requires the film and, especially, his character so you can have a minimum acceptance.

The truth is that there are not many laps to give. This is a film in which a mysterious man has a dangerous mission, rescuing a baby from a satanic cult that aims to sacrifice to change the established order. By the way, get an attractive woman accompanying him, there will be some nudity, many explosions, fights all type (I forgive you going to insist on the fight between Amber Heard and a naked woman, because it does not have to say that Nicolas Cage kills four types while, and I say as stars in a sex scene and does not plan to bet on this sequence, go ...), and 3D special effects almost as parodic as the tone of the film and a final climax, which of course lead to an epilogue open, lest the invention to be successful and everything. Are beginning to put these Martian fashion where there is no catch but, in essence, have their point. Only viewers in the mood and the right company, but it has its point. Even as a film by Nicolas Cage. Even though anyone who reads what I write think I've gone crazy.

Can Puppies Die Vomit

Superheroes coming

In the coming months many superhero that will leap from comics to the movies. In addition to those mentioned here, should also be talking about the highly anticipated The Dark Knight Rises (third installment of Batman by Christopher Nolan, with the additions of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman and Tom Hardy as Bane), Superman: Man of Steel (new reboot the hero of Metropolis to take Nolan to the script and production, as director Zack Snyder, Henry Cavill com Superman, Lois Amy Adams as Lane and Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent) or The Avengers (the meeting by Joss Whedon of all Marvel heroes who have jumped to the big screen in recent years), but they have not begun shooting and no promotional photos available yet, so I have to stay for an upcoming review ...

· Thor

The Norse god of thunder movie jumps to the hand of Kenneth Branagh. Many consider him undirector finished, and it is true that years ago shows no mastery of the beginning, but I think Thor has set before him a opportunity to redeem himself, to prove it has a future and to break into a serious action movie adult. That does not mean that the first photos that were distributed frightened for him. More than gods of Asgard seemed Knights of the Zodiac, but the trailer and the movie names reassured thing, because the casting seem very wise. Chris Hemsworth plays Anthony Hopkins Thor and Odin, leading a great cast full of familiar names and which also features Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, the human who falls for the Norse god on Earth. Festival promises to be a novel action for Branagh, but also have an important sediment yes it works well for the finger to a director who made his name in films adapted from Shakespeare. Arrives in late April and I look impacencia.

· X-Men. First Generation

Another reboot singing. After the end of the saga of X-Men with the third film (directed by Brett Ratner, who picked up pre-production work and the first two movies of Bryan Singer), an outcome that angered many fans (but that to me I felt right beyond the loose inerpretación the evolution of Jean Grey in Phoenix), Wolverine was a clear trip (both its sequel, now underway, has been delayed by the departure of its director intended, the overvalued Darren Aronofsky). This First Generation has nothing to do with the comic and will be a sort of prequel to the films already known. Fox does not appear to have much faith in it, as announced X-Men 4 and 5 revisiting the story where her third and forgetting it as a basis to continue the narrative. The fact is that the trailer announces good things, as good as the appealing cast. Must await the beginning of June to see if we have a good direction to the most famous Marvel mutants or if a new fiasco forget.

· Green Lantern

Ryan Reynolds is by no means the best possible Hal Jordan. Maybe some other of the Green Lantern comic book it could have been, but it is difficult to fit as Hal Jordan, and more after him as Deadpool in Wolverine or discovering more or less comic vein that under the trailer, will have this movie. That's what you can do a skid. To his credit, plays what is sensed as a great visual spectacle (although the redesign of the suit, to something completely different than the comic shows, and some characters are as Kilowog also points to negative and unnecessary stabbing fan ever) and the office that usually deploy from the direction of Martin Campbell in genre films (the devilishly entertaining credits include The Mask of Zorro or the early films of Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig as James Bond, Goldeneye and Casino Royale ). See Mark Strong as the evil Sinestro continues to this day the greatest attraction of this film. The cocktail can be very interesting or stay more than a little movie superheroes. It opens in the second half of June.

· Capitán América. El primer Vengador

Una que empezó mal y que poco a poco ha ido enderezando su rumbo. Mal porque la elección de Chris Evans (la Antorcha Humana en las dos películas de Los 4 Fantásticos ) parecía un claro error, y mal porque su director, Joe Johnston, venía de ofrecer una de las peores películas en muchos años, El hombre lobo . Pero las primeras fotos mostraban una interesante producción de época (la epopeya del Capitán América comienza en el cómic durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial) y una más que notable caracterización, tanto del héroe como del villano (Hugo Weaving dando vida a un Sinister Red Skull), which confirmed the trailer and the images we've seen. Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci also give luster to a very good deal. The thing may end up running, especially if the special effects work as they should (and in the simplest things like watching the shield flying hero) and become a very pleasant surprise and the final chapter before seeing all the Avengers together in the film by Joss Whedon. We will see in early August.

· Conan The Barbarian

smells disaster from the beginning. Jason Momoa pick up the baton left Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan in the first half of the 80's, and that's saying a lot. True, Arnie was not exactly the version that showed the hero in comics, but physically he was unsurpassed. Momoa nowhere near what you'd expect to see Conan and a lot will have to paddle to convince people. It has spread since the first trailer in which only a few images are blurred in smoke. If being so near the opening, in August, we have not yet seen a moving scene of this Conan most likely means that either do not believe their own responsibility. Marcus Nispel directs that (author of the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre , The guide Gorge or Friday 13 ) does not seem a good news for fans of the Cimmerian barbarian. A picture and a poster if they look decent, and gives the impression that the appearance of this wild world can be as salvageable. Perhaps surprising, but it seems unlikely.

· Wonder Woman

Years and years of speculation about a Wonder Woman movie have ended with the announcement that it will be a television series ... if the pilot convinced. However, there still is not buried the idea of \u200b\u200bmaking a film, which could even live with the adaptation of the small screen. Not many days ago was published the first picture of Adrianne Palicki dressed like the Amazon's most famous DC Comics and a few days later saw the first pictures of the shoot ... where the suit had been modified. It looks better in the shooting in his debut, but it still looks weird. How rare is to see Palicki trying to be Wonder Woman, perhaps the heroin which seems more difficult to hit (largely because Lynda Carter in the 70 series has long been a sort of Wonder Woman final). They wanted to mix the traditional uniform and latest amendments and time is a rare amalgam. If you have a good script and rolled effectively, convince. If not, what is difficult. Not yet known when the pilot episode will be released.

· The Amazing Spider-Man

Another controversial end to a trilogy, Spiderman of Sam Raimi, led to a reboot . And a reboot has a funny story, because he entrusted to a semidesconocido, Marc Webb (director of 500 days together.) Andrew Garfield demonstrated in Social Network is a good actor and can be a great Peter Parker, but his age does not fit the teen apparently Spiderman is to recover in this movie. Emma Stone also look good as Gwen Stacy, the first girlfriend of the hero in comics. The first promotional pictures and clips have sat as cold water, because the costume of the hero is strange, different from the traditional. It seems that a lot and want to innovate closer to the Ultimate version of the classic Marvel hero. At this point we do not know much about the history, except that the villain will be the Lizard, which makes this film is a huge unknown. Sam Raimi left the bar very high, especially with his first two films, which shows great comic and live action film marriage are able to offer fun and entertainment in abundance. We will see in a lot, in July 2012.

How To Enclose A Shower

Over the years, and for many years, I thought that film had no women as before. And I think the woman who sparked the thought in me was Elizabeth Taylor. Seeing her in Ivanhoe, Quo Vadis in (was named Lygia, but Deborah Kerr took the paper and she only made a small cameo) in Cleopatra, in all these historical and adventure films that we saw earlier in TV and we've lost Always seek unless hard on video libraries, libraries or pay channels, I fell in love with her. In his presence, his look, his voice (which was not theirs, of course). Love as only a kid can be a movie star, but love the end of the day. Then the woman rose (or was I who brought up?) And moved to embody something different, more disturbing, more sensual. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or Suddenly, Last Summer showed the same Elizabeth Taylor as always, that had become forever in Cleopatra, there was his eyes to tell, but it was another. The same woman, but quite another (or was I who had changed?).

And both had changed, that years later I found myself watching an Elizabeth Taylor almost adolescent the bride's father . People remember this movie for being one of the unforgettable, wonderful, unique and never complete couples between Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn and it turns out there she was, beautiful and adorable. As in many other films was less than that I would have liked. And I was fortunate to arrive on time to pay a movie ticket to see Elizabeth Taylor on the big screen, albeit in somewhat lower, almost unworthy of her, her last film, The Flintstones . But she was. And his worst moments could never erase the Elizabeth Taylor that I have in my head, my memory and my heart. Which is dressed in white, which shows sensuality, sexuality, character and energy, I just had to bare his soul and not your body to get what he wanted. The one fight with Paul Newman. That makes me believe that what happens on screen is real. That was Elizabeth Taylor. That will always be Elizabeth Taylor. Susan Hayward Damn, that you took that would have been his first Oscar, even then win two.

Now some say that Elizabeth Taylor was not as good an actress as many other legends of his generation, it was just a movie star who had so many Hollywood golden. Now with his death, many have chosen to remember his last film made 17 years ago and its existence for many women is limited to that of lost causes (and many laudable) to that of the scandals, the diseases or dangerous liaisons. For me it has shut down a star, even a star, but one that never cease to shine, because that was Liz, a star. And no, the word has a derogatory meaning for me, never will be. Will never be less star actress. Never cease to be a woman who fascinated me many years ago, one that first taught me that beauty is something eternal, that as much as some want to delete is captured in a frame that you can play as many times as desired by the end of time. Liz was one of the first women who taught me what being a movie star. And no, there are no women as before on the screen, of course not.

Ok To Take Tylenol While 38 Weeks

Liz 'Sucker Punch' cocktail Martian unclassifiable ...

Get into a shaker with five young, beautiful and sexy actresses. Add a story strange, of those who have a history within history, playing with reality and fiction. Conjúguese with a festival of special effects and the disappearance of the camera and the real scenario as a filming location. Mix with how to conduct more colorful, and cumulative levels pintoriesca imaginable. And it would shake well as Zack Snyder, director 300 , Watchmen and Ga'Hoole. The legend of the Guardians . What goes? A Martian cocktail, strange and unclassifiable called Sucker Punch . And, eye, because that does not mean it's bad at all. But it is a film so unusual, so different in their everyday life, so extreme in public areas, it is difficult to define whether it has seen a show in any way revolutionary, an entertaining film that will delight of the geeks or chaos where there is no catch. At least rule out the latter possibility, so that evil can not be the bottom line.

After a brief introduction to voice-overs, Sucker Punch begins with a spectacular and overwhelming silent sequence. Overwhelming in the visual and sound (the whole film is full of very lively versions of songs, some of them well known). It no doubt recognizes the style of Snyder, who made 300 innovative piece of action cinema in the U.S. and did pass the daunting and impossible task of adapting Watchmen to the movies. It is not unreasonable to say that this sequence, and an unusual splendid assembly rate is the best of the film, although some visual findings seem taken from their previous work. And that's the risk that arises Snyder from the beginning, repeated. Is a director who charge so much ink on the visual effect in the slow motions, in turns the camera impossible. With Sucker Punch is not a repeat, is that it takes that obsession to an extreme further away from the canons classics. But, and here's the surprise, does not produce the usual action movie dizziness. His choreography (and why they work their slow motions) can continue.

In the preface, Snyder introduces us to the character of the function (you sure?), A 20 year old with no name (a soda Emily Browning) who ends up locked in a mental hospital by her stepfather after the death of his mother and murder of her little sister, you will be charged to murder her. In the hospital is where the mix between reality and fiction, because there she recreates the power of your imagination a different world, an escape, an escape. And that world, in turn, has another recess imagination within the mind of the girl, now dubbed Baby Doll (doll in Castilian). In the hospital befriend other four girls, their names such as in fiction costumes created for her: Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish, perhaps the most complete of the five as an actress), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens, perhaps the most popular High School Musical ) and Amber ( Jaime Chung). There are five recognizable faces in small roles before but none as popular enough to trigger the budget with their salaries.

300 If fetishism was one hundred percent male, here it is female, and is exploited in every possible way, from the costumes to the planning of the scenes. The fact is that they are the main attraction of the film if one approaches it from the perspective more adolescent. Sexy girls, weapons of all kinds, special effects, impossible creatures and a fantasy story. The dream of every geek teenager. How do you convince other audiences that this film is more than that? Perhaps considering that this film can play a key role in understanding, in the future, how did the transition between real and virtual scenarios. Certainly there are films that have used more green screen and special effects Sucker Punch. But this film gives a sense of change and progress. What it offers is the disappearance not only of the stage and sets, but the camera understood as the final limit of what the director wants to grasp. Is a constant challenge to the traditional way of shooting, is overwhelming and undisturbed continuous rotation of the camera, supported by the slowdown of the images and the convenience of the group of leading ladies with their role in this festival visual. To

package in history, Snyder draws on Scott Glenn (who after years gone already seen in Secretariat and W. ; is great news his return) for the role of guidance in this kind of adventure game film, Carla Gugino (Sin City and Watchmen ), Oscar Isaac (an interesting side increasingly seen of Lies , Robin Hood or Agora) and in a brief role Jon Hamm (star of Mad Men that after The Town still looking side to enable it to jump to the movies). They bear the double (or triple) the film's narrative structure devised by Snyder, who writes in his first original script (some say it is based very loosely on Alice in Wonderland , Lewis Carrol, but providing a touch excessive and uncontrolled wild action.) The script, if anything, surprises more than expected. Falls much pace after the prologue, but quickly back to offer a frenetic second hour. In its last section offers a few surprises as preventing preivisible catolog. In fact, if something is not Sucker Punch is predictable, although its development is repetititvo sometime. "Contradiction? No doubt. But it works.

Sucker Punch is a Martian. Do not expect a serious movie, formal or feet on the ground. Is just the opposite of that approach. We are looking to reach the viewer through a visual delirium unclassifiable, which fit babes with big cleavage and miniskirts through the trenches of any battle of the First World War, samurai swords to meet a dragon and impossible-looking androids who want to blow up a futuristic city, all anchored in a dramatic story that is realistic dye that gives beginning of the film. With just a handful of films and about to take over the Superman films regfreso the hand of a script and production of Christopher Nolan (can be two opposite approaches a priori as yours? I have curious to see what results from their Union ...), Zack Snyder is making a hole as a renovator of fantasy action and an innovator in the use of the camera to create wrappers virtual. And besides, Sucker Punch entertains. In case you had not been clear.

White Leather Sofa Cleaning

entertaining 'The Rite' too close and too far from 'The Exorcist'

When they made the definitive film on a subject, it is difficult to be original to address it again. Exorcist is just a short film. It is a bible, a travel guide, an instruction manual on how to make a film that speaks of demonic possession. And so it is impossible to improve it. Or better, say unlikely, we will one day find a surprise. The rite is too close to what had Exorcist, and is not ashamed of these similarities. In contrast, almost take them with humor. But at the same time, is too far from what led to the legendary film by William Friedkin. Horror films have long ceased to cause terror and The rite is demonstrated. Not scary, and perhaps even intended, knowing that gender has more paths derived graphics and tanned stomachs. In any case, it is an interesting story about faith. Perhaps too predictable and low risk with the material at hand, but at least entertaining and well played almost always.

The rite does not conceal the least, but try it with a lineup that gives you everything the weight of the project to Anthony Hopkins. But his character, Lucas Trevant father is not the protagonist of the film. Yes it is Michael Kovack Colin O'Donoghue (an almost debutant film actor who has worked in television and is limited to being correct), a young man who flees his future as a mortician with his father getting a cure. But has no faith, or at least not enough, he decides to quit before you start. To avoid this, his superiors sent him to Rome to do in the course of Vatican exorcist. His doubts were the attempt to resolve an unorthodox priest, Father Lucas. The priest protagonist of The Exorcist also came to a trance with the devil devoid of faith. If there was his mother the heart of its troubles, here is the father. At the center of attention is a possessed girl, you'll only have a few more years and is a pregnant teenager. There are similarities. When the young trainee priest surprised to see the first person possessed, Father Lucas asked if he expected to see heads turning and pea puree. The authors of The rite which loses in comparison.

Once lost the battle of originality, the tactics of the film to engage the viewer passes by the charisma of Anthony Hopkins. Perhaps it is surprising that the film take so long to start for him, because up to half an hour the nearly two hard the film is not seen on screen. Hopkins is a renowned actor and category (qualities not always agree on a single artist), and gives the film a break, depth and interest that may not have with another actor. In the final scene walks the delicate boundary of overacting and does not always successful, but in general has a more than interesting and nuanced. If charisma is the thing, until it comes out it is just the charisma of the performers who parade across the screen that holds the tension of the story in his lengthy introduction. Rutger Hauer has that charisma, and I had since recovered Christopher Nolan Batman Begins . As Toby Jones (Truman Capote's splendid Infamous and one of the star of the wonderful Fog). And Ciaran Hinds (Munich appeared in , Steven Spielberg).

But that charisma does not seem to have Mikael Hafstrom, director of the film. Specialized ("box?), Probably forever, in the horror genre (after a failed East thriller set in the 40's, Shanghai ) does not offer many innovative solutions. Abuses of focus and blur as his only alternative to plan what happens on the screen and used, not always with success, many flashes in the form of flashbacks. The performance, overall, is too contrived. And that perhaps would have given better results if he had raised a horror movie full of scares tricky (as it was the right What Lies Beneath , this ghost story starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer). But that's just what The rite is not. Your bet is (except at specific moments in which, by chance and against what seems fun, bet on the path marked by The Exorcist ) of the psychological thriller, the discussion of faith, the need for beliefs. That wager, which works reasonably well for 90 minutes, lost in the climax Finally, a climx whose choice is difficult to understand and whose development is very predictable.

The rite is a film built on a more or less correct, up and down narrative offset by good performances and seek to hide behind women's presence and journalistic debate (both personified by the actress Alice Braga, Predators , Blindly, I Am Legend ). Although loaded with ingenuity, the best moments of the film go through the doubts in the faith of its protagonist. Delving into the center of the main character nuance, Rite could have taken much more advantage of its raw material, have scored actual distances with respect to its venerable reference and have reached the level of terror when one leaves the theater to which all should aspire genre film. However, it is still another example of this theater of possessions and exorcisms which seems to have become strong in recent years. A star with Anthony Hopkins. Nor is small, if you look with benevolence that require this type of film.

What Does The Jelly Bracelets Look Like

'Morning Glory', laughter and charisma

is clear that the film should be seen when you have to see. Because it is the only way to understand that Morning Glory has left me very dissappointed. You look carefully and is not a great movie. You do not have a good script, very predictable and smelling fried. It's a look too kindly on a kind of journalism to me, not really excites me. But sympathy and produce laughter overflows. That's the most unexpected of course, but is that a long time since I laughed so much with a movie. Do not go thinking that is the most hilarious comedy of the story, but it has its points. And those points are rooted in the charism off their protagonists. Because Harrison Ford has finally found a role that is a perfect fit after years of trifles in which did not fit (with the intermission of returning to Indiana Jones, of course) and it shows a talented Rachel McAdams innate comedy. The rest is nothing special, but it's a nice tape. Go ahead

a warning: this is not a romantic comedy. There is a romance, of course, because that is a must in a movie made in Hollywood, but that is not what it offers Morning Glory. Its protagonist is the young woman delivered stereotyped and completely to his work is a challenge that all will be against them but which will make it impossible to exit gracefully. Seen a very cliché. And very friendly environment have also seen the television that portrays the film. Friendly because it does not attempt any criticism on what counts. There is an analysis of television current or on the morning news shows varieties. Morning Glory nothing more than what it is, a nice little film with charismatic actors. Search more deeply is to experience a huge disappointment in viewing. But if it looks like it is, a light comedy, perfectly fulfills its mission of entertaining.

And as the film itself offers plenty of non-scratching, the merit of that empathy is undoubtedly aroused his actors. Morning glory begins with a conversation (is very Machiavellian draw a parallel, downward course with the wonderful beginning of The network ?) In which seeks to establish the personality of the protagonist, Becky Fuller, a woman who is less than thirty lives completely surrendered to her work as producer of a local radio program. For that reason, is unable to have a normal love life. It is also a woman who talks a lot and that does not dominate the social uses to change its behavior. The portrait sounds appealing, but Roger Mitchell (Notting Hill director ) suddenly change course. That soon workaholic is also room for sentiment and is labia soon buried by the overwhelming presence of Mike Pomeroy, a journalist with the prestige and grumpy to start working.

words, the film begins with trap. Quye what we see in the first scene is not reflected later. The Becky of that initial conversation does not end being the same person shown in the rest of the film. Forgiven this inconsistency, Rachel McAdams shows a talent for comedy kind, which together with its versatility ( Sherlock Holmes, Beyond time, of Play ) makes it a name and a face attractive for all types of film. Here comes out victorious despite being surrounded by big names. Or, rather, precisely because of that. Because there's chemistry in their (somewhat limited) scenes with Jeff Goldblum and, above all, with Harrison Ford. In fact, it is the joint appearance of McAdams and Ford which shoots the film. His are the best scenes, even when they are not flat but sharing sequence. Diane Keaton, much duller than you might expect, it sometimes seems overrun beyond its catalytic role, but there it works (see pique Online Keaton and Ford to a first McAdams gaping behind the scenes then raging in front of them.)

Morning glory is one of the many films that offer nothing complacent and bold visions of a professional world in particular. They are the excuse to meet very different characters and see what happens. Is a key film is widely used, very trite, but it works when the casting is right. Here it is, and why the film ends up working. Without a trace too deep in the viewer, but a hundred minutes of entertainment offering sincere, well filmed, well together musically and, above all, very well played. A perfect movie to watch when you need to forget the world and smile.

Colorado Requirements For Mortician

Oscars 2011. Predictable and boring

Something is wrong if the best of the Oscars this year is that Kirk Douglas, at 94 years, appears on stage and that it occurs within a few minutes into the ceremony. Of course, it was a delight see wasting aplomb, grace and class, but if that's the best, why the remaining served just over three hours of the gala? The awards were the most predictable in years. The presenters, the most bland. The gala, the less pace in a long time. And Hollywood did not give many signs of evolving. Yes to reward the good, I'm not against the winners, but the Academy missed the odd opportunity to take a step forward. The summary is that the awards were sung (especially important, because there was betting that the four actors had winners), there were no great moments to remember (even the pregnant Natalie Portman) and the ceremony was dull. Well, everything but Kirk Douglas and the much missed in these conflicts Billy Crystal.

winner of the night: The king's speech . Yes, but no. He won because he took the prize for best film, best director, best actor and best original screenplay. But gained little. Because Origin shares the fact that he took four awards, while the film Christopher Nolan are all taenicide character. For me, Origin is still the best film of 2010. Is the most complete, most original, the most disruptive and most surely will be remembered now and in a few years. But as the Academy Nolan had not included in the quintet of nominees for best director, it was impossible to get out as the winner of the night. As for me, second best movie of 2010: Toy story 3 . Hollywood still does not dare to judge as he deserves the animated film. The crumb to give a class by itself still seems to me absurd, a justification as any for not recognizing that animation is a technique as valid as the real action to make a great movie.

What is also clear from these Oscars is that David Fincher is going to take his own to find recognition as prizes (and enough to write this so that his next film takes ten statuettes ...). He ignored their Revolutions police movies ( Seven and Zodiac ) and although he was nominated by The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and now social network, the awards were for others. The dramatic film about the origins of Facebook deserved a better fate, but that will take the prize for best script is a good recognition. Which also achieved the best soundtrack left me cold. Very suitable in the film, yes, that Hans Zimmer Perolo ago by Origin or what Alexandre Desplat gets in The king's speech is well above the innovative nature of the music social network. Posts to be original, could have given the award for Daft Punk for his outstanding work for Tron. That itself would have been rupture.

winning actors irreproachable. Gave me special joy awards Natalie Portman and Christian Bale. For me, two of the most prodigious performances of the year but not for many years. Colin Firth is also fantastic and if any leaves me somewhat bittersweet flavor is that of Melissa Leo. Not because I like its impressive work, but because I have a weakness for his co-star and nomination, Amy Adams, which established that damaged the script and perhaps mounting The Fighter . And not only impeccable but also great news that I found Grit are outside the vacuum, becoming one of the biggest losers in the history of the history of these awards. Hollywood did not bet on originality, but at least it honored the blatant copy of the Coen brothers sobrevaloradísimos. That's something. In any case, one should not take awards too seriously. Alice in Wonderland film is very, very limited. Probably the worst thing that has made Tim Burton. And he won two awards (art direction and costume).

So much for the winners. As for the show, I think it was the worst of recent times. Dull and boring. No more grace than distilled Anne Hathaway in the musical number in which he recalled the last major presenter of the Oscar, Hugh Jackman. The fact is that Hathaway and James Franco were completely overwhelmed in the first fifteen minutes for the sobriety of Tom Hanks (the first to present awards) and Kirk Douglas unleashed. And if we add the subsequent appearance of Billy Crystal (at the Kodak Theatre was a ovation, perhaps the biggest of the night next to none who received the honorary award winners, Francis Ford Coppola and Eli Wallach, delivered at another gala and came here just to say hello from the stage), things look bad for Presenters this year. Crystal won the audience in just over a minute, did his role and did so with grace. It was Billy Crystal at the Oscars again. It looks increasingly essential for this gala is done in an entertaining way.

The impression left is that the 2011 Oscars have gone unnoticed. And that was very good films among the nominees, as charismatic actors who won and who did not receive the statuette. The event happened just three hours, was not as long as other issues which, being longer, were openly criticized. But it seems clear that something is wrong when twigs and leaves a dull spectacle. Because if anything is clear is that this gala are going to remember Kirk Douglas. Neither the winners or the losers, not presenters. Only Kirk Douglas. A guy who, incidentally, never won the Oscar, but as he recalled he was nominated three times (The idol of clay, The Bad and The Lust) and gave an honorary award in 1996. What things have life.

To read a story more formal and more data over this humble chronicler, you can click here . To read about the fact that Javier Bardem did not achieve his second Oscar in her third nomination, click here .

Open Champagne Broken Cork

'Grit' remake not a photocopy dark and bad

The Coen brothers are a mystery to me. Liking or so, until 1998, until The Big Lebowski were a recognizable and interesting filmmakers, with a small defect, with the exception of the epic Note (legendary Jeff Bridges), his films not stay long in the memory although they were good (perfect example, Miller's Crossing ). But something happened after that film, because since then did not generate the slightest interest. Nothing you have liked me, I felt were overvalued until the excess (perfect example No Country for Old ) and some other of their products have come to irritate me (perfect example A man seriously). But they finally managed to overcome their main weakness. Grit the film will stay forever in my memory. Yes, the Coens have taken another major hindrance to completely cancel their merit: this movie I've seen it. Have been limited to photocopy Grit did Henry Hathaway in 1969 with John Wayne. We have come a photocopy dark (tone and outcome), but copy the end of the day. And, yes, I remember dialogues and scenes. But with other faces. Best faces, indeed.

not know and have not read the book that are based both Hathaway movie like the Coen brothers, so I can not tell which parts are true to the original findings which are literary and film. But what is clear is that all but one belong to the first film version. The Coens introduce only two major changes in his film, a wonderful opening scene, dark, intriguing and well told, and an end to almost be understood as an effect of time. The triumphant song of a lively John Wayne would not make sense here with Jeff Bridges. He is past western, the new western requires a different tone. Then there are some other things, a history that slips inconsequential half of footage and changed some dialogue scene. But that's it. And so the Coens have managed no less than ten nominations for the Oscars. The most amazing is that they have received the Best Adapted Screenplay. Since then adapted it, but the degree of adaptation is embarrassing, because, again, is a photocopy of the original. The same phrases, the same sequences, the same characters. And what is more offense, it all sounds worse than the original. Aesthetically

you can say it's a well shot film. Hard to argue. But the only thing new is that darkens the color palette. The red scarf no longer fits John Wayne in a western XXI century, not since Clint Eastwood masterfully closed a cycle Unforgiven. Here are gray, brown and black. There are no concessions to the joy in the tones. And surely it is a wise move, because otherwise the copy would have been perfect, as much as Jeff Bridges lead the eye patch John Wayne contrary to that had blocked or Josh Brolin has the burning of the face in the cheek opposite Jeff Corey . Big changes Coen, yes sir. Almost like a subliminal message to the viewer, warning that there are major changes over the first Grit. See the two films in a row is a very healthy exercise that removed the pretentious work of the Coen in modern cinema. On their offenders had their point. Now that will artists have been portrayed. Rather, it should have been portrayed, but it is not. Among the exaggerated praise to Javier Bardem for No Country and this rehash old West gives the impression that we are before a true master of cinema. Not for me, of course.

And everything in this Grit sounds less authentic than the original. History, for who does not know, is simple, as simple as was that of almost any western mid-twentieth century. A man is killed and his daughter engaged to a federal agent brave but too fond of the drink to give chase. And by the way they are joined by another man who wants to capture the murderer, but take it to another state to be hanged for another murder, which does not like the girl, who wants his revenge and not the other. That actor John Wayne was drunk. And John Wayne will always be John Wayne. Jeff Bridges is by far the best actor in this release, but sounds like deja vu, maybe even a negative note darker, less funny and more pathetic (and said this as a compliment to their work). Matt Damon is the most insipid, Josh Brolin and she wasted directly Hailee Steinfeld, who has garnered much praise, is no more accurate and far below the charisma exuded in the original version of Kim Darby. And if you remember the stunning original roles in the Robert Duvall and Dennis Hopper is when we realize that the distribution of the Coen line to a height lower.

The first impression left Grit is astonishment. I do not know if everyone has forgotten Henry Hathaway's film or if I have to praise the Coen whatever they do. And so the second impression is even more negative, almost angry. Because one feels that I have been fooled. Enraged that other remakes have much bolder critic who despises him as a sign of lack of ideas in Hollywood and then get a product like this and receive praise and awards everywhere. Hopefully over the years this Grit occupy its rightful place, ie, the most absolute of forgetfulness. I will be sorry for some of the actors I admire and respect. But the Coens do not. The Coen ended his film career with The Big Lebowski and left interesting films like Fargo , Miller's Crossing, The Hudsucker (what, the only films that garnered fierce criticism because, they said then, was a concession to Hollywood) or Barton Fink (not cite Arizona Baby, although I know many people like, because I did not say much). What followed is indescribable, astonishing and, as this time, irritating.

Breastfeeding Hubby Images

'127 hours', 94 minutes and an instant

Aaron Ralston was trapped five days in a rocky canyon in Utah. Withstands 127 hours the title of the film until, finally decided to cut his arm, which was what I was trapped by a boulder. Mutilate chose to live. Danny Boyle, a director for me overrated and conquered critics and awards with the dull and I think that more and more forgotten Slumdog Millionaire, directed this film which tells the saga of Ralston. One moment, only a moment, is what really matters. And most of the time when the short arm, mark the later time. What makes a man when living thing? That is the point of interest in a film, being a true story, is lost in the game of unreality, which seems more interested in innovation (does not) in formal aspects that appeal to the humanity of each and every one of its viewers. In claims similar in appearance but in reality not so 127 hours remains light years Buried . James Franco, yes, it offers a real tour de force interpretation.

Danny Boyle is still considered a groundbreaking, an innovator. Perhaps a rebel. There is no way to understand his eccentricities visual 127 hours. The strength of this story is that it actually happened. But what we see is not a recreation but a picture that distorts the elements of good document. We divided into three levels (like the opening sequence, if intended as a sort of metaphor for the current lifestyle, not rogue relationship with history), we see images camcorder, see pictures scrolling across the screen. We see a lot of visual experiment that we have seen in the past, although probably not in such a high percentage of the same film. If I asked how come the more interested I stylistic Danny Boyle that the human drama of its protagonist, it would have had to come to the memory of his previous film. Slumdog Millionaire was a documentary about poverty in India that a great film. With or without them Oscars. And here is the same. To Ralston said it was almost a documentary of what happened.

The fact is that, or perhaps because of that, narratively the film takes too long to boot. Perhaps because the viewer that's waiting to see is that 127 hours agonizing captivity suffered by Ralston and, instead, Boyle takes many turns before arriving at the fateful moment that falls into a ravine and a rock imprisoning his arm. And from that moment, Boyle prefers to focus on the unreal world, in hallucinations, flashbacks, dreams, rather than its own character. James Franco gets, however, that the actual scenes, which correspond chronologically to the torture accidental, are the best in the film. Awe, he did, with much more class than the director in his choices, when put in front of his camera and tells who he is, what has happened. Or that sequence (very upset, yes, Boyle), which is released questions and answers as if it were on television (is it too far-fetched to draw a parallel with the conversation between Gollum and Smeagol in The Two Towers second installment of the trilogy The Lord of the Rings? ).

Undoubtedly, James Franco is the best of 127 hours, although the first option was Danny Boyle Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in the Batman movies by Christopher Nolan.) It is not easy to be present at all levels of a movie. It is not, moreover, when the story is as hard as it. And it is not when it means, also represent the mental deterioration of a person who fears for his life and who are suffering. Not getting ahead of trance is that it overboard. Boyle will soften somewhat the task of footage devoted considerable time to the moments before the accident, when Ralston meets two young lost to serving as a guide for the area. Distractions that will surely want to prevent the viewer to focus on the scene, in fact, has turned into a movie. But it is inevitable. That scene is hard, with much blood, but perhaps less emotionally exploited by the director of what would be desirable.

The moment marks more than the 94 minutes, and that no says nothing good work by Danny Boyle. The film ultimately is a superb work of interpretation and the push to find out more about an epic human story. But after that moment, the castle collapses. The epilogue is long and says little more. As some had said before the accident. Boyle fails to close the movie well and on time, or enter it hard enough. And he remains a moral value more typical of young beavers manual that the narration of an episode about human nature. 127 hours as the story remains disappointing and a gripping story with a sublime actor.