REVIEW: THE RAID
FRIDAY PREVIEW: APR 20th, 2012
REVIEW: JOHN CARTER
REVIEW: THE ARTIST
REVIEW: DRIVE

REVIEW: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES

My Rating:




The level of enjoyment of a film dominantly comes from one's expectations of it. Battle: Los Angeles is a film following a platoon (squad? group? whatever, it's two dozen or so) of Marines, led by 2nd Lieutenant Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) and his second in command, Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) as they battle and try to outsmart a virulent, mechanical-humanoid/squid that has simultaneously and unexpectedly invaded the oceanic coasts of the entire world. With Los Angeles being one of the few costal metropolises still standing, the American military decides to make the city of Angels it's final main battleground.

I went into Battle: Los Angeles with mild expectations. I'm always game for a solid alien movie, and I was definitely in the mood, having already watched Monsters and Star Trek earlier that day. I wasn't expecting to be blown away by a fantastic script or Avatar/District 9 graphics, but I was looking to be decently entertained.

My expectations made the uncanny accuracy of my magic-8-ball look like the vagueness of horoscope predictions. Nothing special or even noticeable in any department, including music, editing, acting, sound, cinematography, etcetera, was present.  Aaron Eckhart held the par story together with his believable and not overly achieved character. Everybody else was as expected; Michelle Rodriguez and Bridget Moynahan played their usual characters in a surprisingly enjoyable fashion. No award winning music, but it fit the bill for an action movie of similar epic proportions to Independence Day (Happy Birthday Judd Hirsch). Graphics: believable but it's all been done before. I wasn't in awe of how realistic the aliens were from any particular shots. In fact, you never really got a good look at the aliens, the camera work was very shaky and the editing didn't leave them on screen for more than a second or two. I definitely wanted a decent view of an alien, and in this case Battle: Los Angeles left me hanging.

Every military cliché was maintained as usual, from the wussy "I can't do it, sarge!" to the gung-ho "We're Marines, let's show these aliens who owns this planet"! It was old in Avatar, and it's not getting any better. One noticeably impressive thing about the film was it's attempt at making an accurate depiction of a squad of marines; from what they said, what they did, and how they shot. There were flaws all over the place, yes. But considering Hollywood usually hires some half-assed consultant to prevent any goofs, I didn't notice the usual military-continuity issues that are normally blazingly obvious within the first five minutes.

The story to the film was very linear; taking place over the course of a single day, the camera never left Eckhart's side. There were no flashes to the president or an air-force pilot on a bombing run; it stayed with the Marines the entire way through. In my opinion, it was about time that a movie doesn't rely on jumping between time and space to tell a decent story. You're stuck knowing exactly the same amount of intellegence as the Marines; once they learn something, you learn it too. The lack of dramatic irony was pretty refreshing.

I wouldn't say that Battle: Los Angeles was a waste of my time; it was exactly what I was looking for. A solid action movie about humans vs aliens that didn't disappoint or over-excite. It was nice to see an action movie not based on a comic book or some sci-fi classic from the 50's. Although it brought nothing new to the table, this film entertained me at the very least. What am I ever looking for when I go to a movie? Just an escape from reality into a world that takes me out of my norm. And in this case, Battle: Los Angeles delivered.


Released: March, 2011
Length: 1 hr 56 min
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Written by: Christopher Bertolini
Cast: Aaron Eckhart, Bridget Moynahan, Ne-Yo, Michelle Rodriguez other D-list actors.
Rating: PG-13

2 comments:

  1. Mark, was this worth the $10 to see in theaters, or should we wait until a Blu-Ray release?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Easily wait 'til Blu-ray. I got lucky enough to see it for $5, and that was about the highest I'd go before feeling robbed. It's entertaining, but not $10 entertaining.

    ReplyDelete