Capricorn Compatibility

Invasion World: Battle Los Angeles (Battle: Los Angeles)

expected with low expectations World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles (which will henceforth abbreviate to "Battle of Los Angeles" ), because although generally enjoy the sub-genre "alien invasion", the previous race director Jonathan Liebesman does not inspire much confidence. In fact, I think your tapes Darkness Falls and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning are among the worst I've seen in this (put it on the poster!). Fortunately the transition to "blockbuster movie" was not as bad as expected and, although far from perfect, Battle Los Angeles seemed like a solid action film war devoid of original ideas but with enough suspense, combat, and effects special to entertain for two hours harmless.

The argument, if the title was not clear enough, revolves around the sudden alien attack on several coastal cities in the world. At first it seems a natural phenomenon ... an unexpected meteor shower that sets in motion the army to evacuate the affected sites. But when he reveals the mechanical origin of the cars, and begin to assault troops out bio-mechanoids, it is clear that the Earth is at war. Then, the film focuses its attention on the Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) and his squad of hardened Marines, whose mission is to rescue a group of survivors in the heart of Los Angeles before the start of the aerial bombardment, hopefully , stop the invaders. Needless to say that the bailout will not be easy, and that during their perilous journey by the steaming streets of the city, the soldiers will find challenges and threats they ever imagined.

understand what Liebesman and writer Christopher Bertolini tried to do, a science fiction film that did not wander into the classic stereotypes of alien invasion, but is based on the drama of the soldiers and their fighting spirit. To achieve this, the film must be moved from the epic spectacle of mass destruction (as we saw in Independence Day, War of the Worlds and the recent Skyline ), and limit their attention to the experiences of characters who are just a small, almost insignificant part of the battlefield. Strictly speaking, Battle Los Angeles does not use the trick of "home camera" style Cloverfield, but that's the impression given, putting us alongside the soldiers to experience up close the terror, confusion visceral intensity of urban combat, with poor visibility, poor guidance and constant uncertainty about the origin of the next attack. In other words (and many have made this comparison) is like Blackhawk Down, but with aliens instead of Somali rebels. Or, for younger readers, is how Modern Warfare 2, but with aliens instead of Russian mercenaries.

The idea is good and is reasonably well executed, but has the same problems we've seen in movies of this type (for example, in the upper Letters from Iwo Jima and Saving Private Ryan), with one or two exceptions, the soldiers are generic cannon fodder who will die according to whether they lack dramatic pauses to give "depth" the shootings and explosions. It is true that Battle Los Angeles cares to define the personalities of these disposable characters ... rookie, who is nervous about his upcoming marriage, the noble Nigerian doctor, etc. But it seems time lost, because in the heat of battle, all are perfectly interchangeable, anonymous, shouting the same tired dialogue ("Move, move, move!", "Cover me!" "I'm on it, Sarge!") . Even the few that we can identify (because they have the faces of famous actors) must also pay mandatory "personal dramas" to give additional meaning to their actions. Example of the ingenuity of the script: the heroic and taciturn Sergeant Nantz is tormented by an event in his past to be overcome to bring alive their "boys" of combat. Ah, yes! And it's also about to retire. Where is the Oscar to the writer?

As for the science fiction angle, I think Battle Los Angeles is also irregular. All elements of fantasy, from production design to the motivation of the aliens, look like a distillation of previous movies with similar theme. Even I found scenes and dialogue to identify Independence Day of (soldiers watching a military base destroyed), District 9 (some moments of urban guerrilla), y. .. um ... I think the rest would be spoilers. Either way more fun for the viewer irlas discovered. What I found less amusing was constantly bumping into logical chasms in the plot, which minimize the level of realism and credibility. I know that it is unwise to expect great zeal narrative film "vs soldiers. Aliens", but the holes in this story are so notorious that I often "pulled" from the movie and made me rolled his eyes in frustration. But ... honestly did not expect more, so I can recommend Battle Los Angeles what it is: a loud, frantic and childish mixture of war movies and science fiction (in the lightest sense of the word) that will undoubtedly be a useful recruiting tool for the U.S. military. The great actor Aaron Eckhart makes its best effort to create a believable character, which is not difficult when surrounded by props human, politically correct for its ethnic diversity, and useful for their specific purpose of dying when required the plot. By the way, Michelle Rodriguez needed agent who can find new roles other than "tough female soldier." Perhaps the director Jonathan Liebesman can recommend a good, after all, not many clunkers directors low-budget horror are suddenly in front of multi-million dollar Hollywood productions. I suspect that these negotiations were the real "Battle of Los Angeles."

Rating: 7

Windows Replacement For Camper Shell

never abandon me (Never Let Me Go)

Note: I think that is a record, this weekend in Mexico were released three films whose criticism had been published previously in Negative image. As usual, I turn to post them for the convenience of readers.

Somehow Never Let Me Go is a science fiction movie, but futuristic and epic style we're used to seeing in the cinema, but the philosophical and brain uses a fantastic setting to examine the human condition from new perspectives. So it will be better seen as a solid drama that narrative works on many levels, all valid and different interpretations from the viewer's particular ideology.

When I started hearing good things about this film tried to stay away from spoilers, but seeing no "twists" surprising and its themes are quite obvious from the beginning, I do not need be too careful with the synopsis. Anyway, those who prefer to see "white", better stop reading now. Never Let Me Go is located in an alternate historical period in which certain medical advances made in the mid-twentieth century allowed to extend human life to 100 years or more, thanks to "donors" of bodies that are carefully bred in schools and "communities", until require their services. The film begins in 1978, and follows the uncertain romance between three of these donors: Tommy (Charlie Rowe), and Kathy girls (Izzy Meikle-Small) and Ruth (She Purnell) who passively compete for the affections of Tommy. Their routine lives in the idyllic college Halesham are strictly monitored to keep them away from the outside world, and conditions to fulfill his destiny, but perhaps the director strict Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) has a different plan for the institution. Seven years later, in 1985, now teenagers Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley) left school and live in "huts," a modest community consisting of donors and "caregivers" who assist them in their occasional contacts with the Royal Society. There goes the love triangle of youth, but also concerned about the mysteries of its origin and the curious rules governing the system of "donations." Finally, in 1994, we found more emotional maturity and a clearer idea of \u200b\u200bthe factors that determined their relationship over the years ... and what the future holds.

At its simplest level, Never Let Me Go is an intense romantic drama very well acted and directed. Sure, it has some unique properties in the situation of the characters and the cruel world around them, but the emotions are honest and perfectly expressed by the trio of main actors. Or rather, the sextet, as the work of children Charlie Rowe, Izzy Meikle-Small and Ella Purnell at the beginning of the film is so good like Andrew Garfield, Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley . He definitely deserves applause director Casting Kate Dowd for finding children that were not only identical to their adult versions, but also excellent actors in their own right not ask anything to his colleagues adults. The search must have been a nightmare, but the result was worth it. For its part Mulligan, Garfield and Knightley lead the most "juicy" in history, facing the difficult task of "jump in time" and show their characters in different stages of life, without losing the "texture" of his character and consistency of their dramatic arcs. Everyone has moments to shine, and although their personalities are necessarily simple, they find ways to surprise us with gestures and reactions of deep sensitivity.

On the more "sci-fi" Never Let Me Go examines a classic ethical dilemma of modern medicine . Although never mentioned the word "cloning", it is obvious that the story seeks to answer the eternal question of "how human clones are created exclusively as repositories of organs for the benefit of their" original "? Fortunately, the intelligent script by Alex Garland (based on a novel by Kazuo Ishiguro ) never falls into the gross spectacle or moral simplicity The Island (or, for that matter, The Clonus Horror ) . In fact, Never Let Me Go is as free of "science" as possible, focusing on the emotions of the characters and showing their amazing views, both as victims of an unjust society, and as heroic martyrs whose sacrifice saves lives. This parsimonious examination of feelings and personalities tend to make the film a little slow but never boring, as the brilliant dialogue and excellent performances consistently drive the story, regardless of the level of analysis that the viewer want to use.

Keeping this ambiguous way, the story omits details about the system of "donors" and the organization that controls them. In a way it frustrating to leave so many unanswered questions but as I said before, the intention of director Mark Romanek (and, I suppose, the novelist Ishiguro ) is focusing on technology, but to observe the development of disposable lives , limited externally, but with the same internal tides that drive the rest of humanity. On the other hand, maybe the film is simply a metaphor for death, or the process required to accept as part of life, and not an arbitrary tragedy destroys our dreams and aspirations. Anyway, I found an exceptional work, a bit slow and fragmented by its tripartite structure, but fascinating and very satisfying. Unfortunately it has been ignored by audiences and critics ("not nominated for Oscars, BAFTA and Golden Globe?), But I hope you eventually find its own audience, it ultimately does not matter if it's drama, science fiction romance: quality is quality, and Never Let Me Go have it in all aspects of production. On the other hand you do not have are the explosions of The Island , so everyone who decides what kind of parable of ethics preferred.

Rating: 9

Ecoli And Strawberries

the kids are alright (The Kids Are All Right)

I have not seen many movies Lisa Cholodenko , but I remember vividly Laurel Canyon (2002), a romantic drama (I guess?) Which I found fascinating their actions and because the script used a very unusual situation to represent a classic tale of heartbreak and personal fulfillment. In other words, foreign ingredients for a family recipe, which worked much better than I expected. The same applies to The Kids are All Right , another exotic "slice of life" intensely honest and personal, also aided by excellent actors and independent sensitivity brings a lot of emotion with minimal effort. Clearly not a perfect film, but I enjoyed your casual style (occasionally pretentious), a far cry from the inflated dramas of commercial cinema.

The plot centers on a typical California family, or maybe not so typical, because it has two mothers: Jules (Julianne Moore) and Nicole (Annette Bening), who years ago used a sperm donor to conceive their children Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). But now the teen Laser curious about their genetic father, Joni and help find Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who happens to be an accessible and friendly individual. The problem is that your well-intentioned influence begins to affect in different ways members of the family, as well as consider a mentor and confidant, others feel it is a potentially destructive intruder. Can this family survive the unexpected addition of a "surrogate father"?

The sub-genre of family drama always runs the risk of too immersed in the conflicts of the characters, forgetting that should be part of a consistent story, which keeps our interest beyond "Look, the beautiful people also suffer. " For The Kids are All Right think maintaining that precarious balance between drama and narrative, for although the plot is relatively simple, the emotions and character development are responsible for promoting it in Realistically, without constantly feel the hand of screenwriter / director manipulating our feelings. Certainly there are anxious moments, surprising revelations and even unexpected humor ... but never feel free, but as an integral part of the personalities that clash with the ups and downs history.

course this does not prevent a couple of bumps in the road towards the desirable end. Some scenes I did grind their teeth by their incongruity, including a family dinner where a Joni Mitchell song serves as an excuse to completely change the attitude of a character. But ... as I said, the performances are good enough to make us forget those tricks manual writers, so that we can focus on the tight network of family ties that support the film. Julianne Moore and Annette Benning are the backbone of the story, and their chemistry is so good that it is easy to forget the lesbian angle when the problems inherent in marriage (any marriage) after twenty years of daily living. Young Josh Hutcherson and Mia Wasikowska is also show professionals, and I confess I did not expect prudent such a good performance of Wasikowska. Unfortunately her role in Alice in Wonderland was absolutely overshadowed by the Tim Burton visual quirks, but his work in The Kids are All Right shows that there is great talent behind its ethereal appearance. Finally, Mark Ruffalo is the undisputed catalyst for conflict, and despite their bad decisions and questionable ethics do not lose the sympathy of the viewer (or maybe yes ... you decide).

For some reason The Kids are All Right is presented as an adult comedy, but those who wait will be disappointed laugh ... This does not mean it is bad, but his intention was not to fall into the artificial scheme Nancy Meyers , but simply to show some unavoidable realities of human experience, including the unexpected turns of life, the inevitable confusion bring, and moral gray scale which can be assessed. Yes, in the end is another melodrama "indie" on intellectual and progressive people seem to be above the offspring ... but I think you have enough emotional realism and narrative value to recommend it as a pleasant alternative to the dramas of Hollywood teary just looking exploit public sentiment. We already have enough of that with adaptations of Nicholas Sparks .

Rating: 8