Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, and Bridget Moynahan
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay by: Christopher Bertolini
Why does Los Angeles always get to be the city that gets blown to pieces in alien invasion movies? We've seen this many times before, in films such as Independence Day, Transformers, Skyline, and now, Battle Los Angeles. Isn't it time for some change, like to another city that's not Los Angeles?
Don't get me wrong. Los Angeles makes for a great city for one of these types of disasters because of its huge population and very scenic landscape. Already, the film loses originality.
SSgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is just about to retire from the marines after he lost much of his platoon on his recent tour of duty. It is not known where his tour was. As soon as reports of meteors falling near the coast of Los Angeles come in, he is asked back to command a platoon with orders to evacuate the area. The problem, these aren't meteors. When these aliens begin a shooting rampage all over the city, simply evacuating the civilians is no longer the biggest problem. Their mission, get to the police station a few miles away from their F.O.B. (Forward Operations Base), find any civilians still alive, and get them to safety before bombs are dropped on the city to destroy the invading force.
It's not getting to the police station that's the daunting task, it's getting back to base that is. The military believes it will be able to rule the air because there are no signs of alien air force ships. But just before the bombs are supposed to be dropped over the city, the enemy air force emerges and proves to be nearly impossible to destroy. Will SSgt. Nantz and his platoon be able to defend the civilians they picked up and what's left of Los Angeles without his past re-emerging? Will he be able to ensure everyone's safety given his track record with the safety of fellow troops?
I have a major problem with the cinematography in this film. Apparently in creating this recipe of a disaster movie, a tripod was not included in the ingredients. While it's cool to have hand cameras for some of the action scenes to make audiences feel like they're part of the film, some scenes should clearly have cameras on some sort of mounting device. By the end of the movie, it's easily possible to have a pounding headache and/or to be dizzy. The cinematography isn't as bad as other movies that don't use tripods such as Cloverfield (2008) but it certainly isn't great.
Battle: L.A. is a very intense film. Except for about the first five minutes of introductory stuff at the beginning of the movie, it's entirely action where. Things get blown up every few seconds. While I love action and watching things get blown up and destroyed, there needs to be a break in the action, even a short one would be good. There's too much shaky camera movement in this film for there to have this much action. It's similar to Black Hawk Down (2001) in that it's got non stop action. It's nowhere near as bloody or gory, but the scene shakes more than Black Hawk Down. If some of the action was taken out of the film, it could easily be a shorter movie. It's two hours that only is good for about an hour and a half. It just gets ridiculous after that and you'll begin to wonder when the end is.
So when is the end? There are many parts that seem like endings, but wait, there's more. And there doesn't need to be more.
What's the highlight of the film? Eckhart's acting. He plays Nantz extraordinarily well because he looks as if he could be a marine. He treats the other actors in the platoon as if they are members of a real platoon. He delivers a great performance.
I could go either way on this movie. In can't say I recommend it or I don't recommend it. You have to decide for yourself. Parts of the film make it worthwhile and others just make you want it to be over. The other thing this film lacks is originality. It would be much more worthwhile if it was somewhat original, but there's nothing we haven't ever seen before in a film of this type.
I give this film a C+.
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Screenplay by: Christopher Bertolini
Why does Los Angeles always get to be the city that gets blown to pieces in alien invasion movies? We've seen this many times before, in films such as Independence Day, Transformers, Skyline, and now, Battle Los Angeles. Isn't it time for some change, like to another city that's not Los Angeles?
Don't get me wrong. Los Angeles makes for a great city for one of these types of disasters because of its huge population and very scenic landscape. Already, the film loses originality.
SSgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is just about to retire from the marines after he lost much of his platoon on his recent tour of duty. It is not known where his tour was. As soon as reports of meteors falling near the coast of Los Angeles come in, he is asked back to command a platoon with orders to evacuate the area. The problem, these aren't meteors. When these aliens begin a shooting rampage all over the city, simply evacuating the civilians is no longer the biggest problem. Their mission, get to the police station a few miles away from their F.O.B. (Forward Operations Base), find any civilians still alive, and get them to safety before bombs are dropped on the city to destroy the invading force.
It's not getting to the police station that's the daunting task, it's getting back to base that is. The military believes it will be able to rule the air because there are no signs of alien air force ships. But just before the bombs are supposed to be dropped over the city, the enemy air force emerges and proves to be nearly impossible to destroy. Will SSgt. Nantz and his platoon be able to defend the civilians they picked up and what's left of Los Angeles without his past re-emerging? Will he be able to ensure everyone's safety given his track record with the safety of fellow troops?
I have a major problem with the cinematography in this film. Apparently in creating this recipe of a disaster movie, a tripod was not included in the ingredients. While it's cool to have hand cameras for some of the action scenes to make audiences feel like they're part of the film, some scenes should clearly have cameras on some sort of mounting device. By the end of the movie, it's easily possible to have a pounding headache and/or to be dizzy. The cinematography isn't as bad as other movies that don't use tripods such as Cloverfield (2008) but it certainly isn't great.
Battle: L.A. is a very intense film. Except for about the first five minutes of introductory stuff at the beginning of the movie, it's entirely action where. Things get blown up every few seconds. While I love action and watching things get blown up and destroyed, there needs to be a break in the action, even a short one would be good. There's too much shaky camera movement in this film for there to have this much action. It's similar to Black Hawk Down (2001) in that it's got non stop action. It's nowhere near as bloody or gory, but the scene shakes more than Black Hawk Down. If some of the action was taken out of the film, it could easily be a shorter movie. It's two hours that only is good for about an hour and a half. It just gets ridiculous after that and you'll begin to wonder when the end is.
So when is the end? There are many parts that seem like endings, but wait, there's more. And there doesn't need to be more.
What's the highlight of the film? Eckhart's acting. He plays Nantz extraordinarily well because he looks as if he could be a marine. He treats the other actors in the platoon as if they are members of a real platoon. He delivers a great performance.
I could go either way on this movie. In can't say I recommend it or I don't recommend it. You have to decide for yourself. Parts of the film make it worthwhile and others just make you want it to be over. The other thing this film lacks is originality. It would be much more worthwhile if it was somewhat original, but there's nothing we haven't ever seen before in a film of this type.
I give this film a C+.
Comments
Post a Comment