Battle: Los Angeles

OPENING: 03/11/2011

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 116 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
03.11.11

Opening Statement
About midway through the first half of Jonathon Liebesman’s Battle: Los Angeles I realized the film was not going to fulfill my lofty expectations. Alas my instincts proved correct. LA disappoints on every level imaginable. The heroes sent to eradicate a swarm of alien marauders lack personality and dimension. Likewise the aliens fail to leave an impression, as they are poorly designed, badly imagined and lacking in initiative. What is the point of sacking a city if you possess neither the logic nor the abilities to pull off the task?

Facts of the Case
The world is under attack–again–by alien forces who are attempting to seize the world’s water supply. Into the fold drops Staff Seargant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) who must lead a rag tag group of Marines through an intense battle to save Los Angeles.

The Evidence
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Battle: LA is that it never reaches its full potential. Liebesman’s film strives for the brilliant combat sequences of Black Hawk Down meshed with the close encounters of War of the Worlds, but instead comes across as a hybrid of the awful Independence Day and the badly executed Vietnam flick We Were Soldiers. And so, LA feels flat, hokey, and even contrived. There’s nary a moment of spectacle found within as even the action scenes feel redundant and poorly executed; lacking the type of visual excitement maestros such as Michael Bay, Ridley Scott and James Cameron typically demonstrate.

What we have here is a B-movie extravaganza that might have enjoyed a successful run (and fewer explosions) on the Syfy channel. On the big screen Battle: Los Angeles trips and tumbles, like its alien invaders, over its own ineptitude.

Filled with the sort of campiness that would make even Roger Corman blush, Battle: LA dissolves under its inability to adequately capture the horrors it strives so hard to achieve. Aliens attack, people die, cities fall, but not in the way you expect. While the City of Angels lingers in the backdrop, Liebesman, who brought us Darkness Falls and the insufferable Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, focuses his story on a handful of grunts, choosing to steer clear of the mass carnage in favor of a smaller, personable plot. That’s fine if you’re making “Skirmish in LA,” finer still if you present characters who are meaningful, or worthwhile, but when the title of your film promises a “battle” you better damn well deliver something epic.

The problem here is that Liebersman and screenwriter Christopher Bertolini (The General’s Daughter) offer little in the way of narrative intrigue, or imagination. The aliens’ design drips with blandness; like a rip off of those found in Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, except with fishbowls instead of heads. They’re simply not intimidating enough to worry about. Even their ships, which at times look like those found in a Lego collection, offer nothing in the way of visual stimulation. Films like Independence Day may have sucked, but at least they offered imagination, not to mention humor.

The heroes in LA, led by the estimable Aaron Eckhart, die too quick and too often to care about. None possess much in the way of personality–they’re defined by their accents. Some were southern, one was a girl. And they’re stupid. At one point, after watching an escaping helicopter go down in flames, the squad’s Lieutenant (Ramon Rodriguez) suggests boarding a bus to clear the vicinity before it explodes. “We have to get out of here fast!” he exclaims, failing to deduce the incomprehensible logic of this statement. Surprisingly the bus actually proves quite acute to their situation later on, which causes the audience to believe a) the Lieutenant was not as dumb as he initially appeared, or b) the aliens are not altogether bright or threatening. If you can’t slow down a friggin’ bus, then what makes you think you stand a chance against an army toting weapons of mass destruction?

Such is the logic of Battle: LA, a film that narrows the aliens’ objective down to obtaining water to power their machines. Okay. I’m no general, but I could literally think of dozens of ways in which to set about fulfilling such a task. Here’s a thought: don’t land near a fortified military installation. Or better yet, land in Antarctica and strategize from there. Actually, the aliens could have just asked politely and I’m sure America would have obliged…

I guess that’s the problem with alien invasion flicks. On the one hand you must demonstrate the awesome power of an extraterrestrial species capable of overthrowing the world in a single swoop, but then you must also find and exploit their weakness, or else the film would end on a (gasp!) dark note. The humans must prevail; otherwise there would be no story. Independence Day destroyed its alien foes by uploading a virus into the “Microsoft-ran Alien Hard Drive.” HG Wells (and Spielberg) wiped out their foes with germs. M. Night Shyamalan vanquished his with water and a baseball bat. Tim Burton used country music. None of these scenarios proved satisfactory, leaving audiences hankering for something more…believable.

Sadly, LA does not correct this narrative flaw. In actuality, it attempts something much simpler.

Take, for example, the location of the “mother ship,” which controls the numerous drones occasionally seen soaring across the skyline, and which must be destroyed in order for our heroes to prevail. Something so important should be located outside the battlegrounds, out of harm’s way, or at least protected by more than a few inadequate aliens. Nope. Here the ship rests within a few clicks of the action, guarded only by a few worthless drones, and a half dozen or so alien sentinels. Huh? Shouldn’t the main ship or the one controlling your entire army, be situated elsewhere, and surrounded by fleets of your best fighters?

I understand the need to bend logic at times for the sake of cinematic spectacle, especially when aliens are concerned, but for a film striving so hard to achieve realism, Battle: LA feels amazingly absurd. In other words, District 9 this is not.

Earlier I stated my “lofty expectations” accrued during the massive (and impressive) marketing campaign. The TV ads, trailers and posters suggested something new and unique, a fresh, exciting take on the alien invasion flick. Perhaps I carried too much hope into the theater, or maybe I’ve seen too many movies. All I can say is that a film’s purpose is to entertain, enlighten or inspire. Battle: LA achieved none of these, but it sure made me laugh. At least it was better than Skyline.

Closing Statement
Battle: Los Angeles reaches for greatness, but falls short thanks to poor production qualities, a mediocre script and bland special effects.

The Verdict
5/10

Alice In Wonderland

OPENING: 03/05/2010

STUDIO: Disney

RUN TIME: 109 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You’ve Got A Very Important Date.

Opening Statement
Alice In Wonderland‘s assortment of charming and kooky characters and breathtaking visuals and animation are well worth the price of admission. However, consider yourself forewarned. If you spend too much time only concentrating on the visual aspects of this film, you will be lost and confused trying to follow this story. Though not as bad as the book, there is a lot of nonsense and randomness throughout the entire movie, and entering the theatre without an open, thinking mind will result in you dismissing this film as nonsensical, when it really isn’t.

Facts of the Case
Alice Kingsley (Mia Wasikowska, Amelia) is without a doubt a spitting image of her father. Unsatisfied by living a typical, ordinary life, Alice dreams of remarkable, impossible things; she doesn’t want her life planned out for her like everybody else’s is. At a surprise engagement party for her, Alice notices a white rabbit (Michael Sheen, Frost/Nixon) dressed strangely in a waistcoat turning a corner. Intrigued by this strange sight, Alice goes to follow him, but in the process falls down a rabbit hole and ends up in the whimsical land called Underland.

She eventually makes zany new acquaintances, all who remember her from a previous visit. Alice has no recollection of this visit whatsoever, leading her to believe that she is stuck in a dream she can’t wake from. They reveal to her a special calendar that tells the future, where she learns she must slay a fearsome monster known as the Jabberwocky, a beast owed by the tyrannical Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter, Sweeney Todd) who torments Underland’s residents.

With the fate of Underland resting in her hands, Alice must come to her senses, and believe in herself in order to slay the beast and return rule of Underland to the kind and gentle White Queen (Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married).

The Evidence
First and foremost, it needs to be noted that from a visual standpoint, this movie is amazing. The scenes that take place in England are rather pedestrian, but the moment Alice finds herself descending through the rabbit’s hole into Underland, the movie takes off. As we all know, director Tim Burton is a cinematic deity when comes to making a movie unique visually. This film is in no way an exception. Underland is a masterpiece of CGI, which is relied upon very heavily in this movie. The range of colors is absolutely fantastic, and the outdoor scenes in the film are just bright and beautiful sights to see. CGI also created memorable characters such as the White Rabbit, Absolem the Caterpillar (Alan Rickman, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry, Kingdom), and Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Matt Lucas, Little Britain). All of these characters are more of the supporting role variety, but each has their own unique allure and are guaranteed to make lasting impressions upon moviegoers.

As far as the leading roles are concerned, Burton-veteran Johnny Depp (Public Enemies) plays one hell of a Mad Hatter. Depp’s makeup, hair, and outfit are absolutely genius in a wild and crazy sort of way that only Tim Burton can capture. The Hatter talks in many different voices and tones, capturing the madness of the loony Mad Hatter to a T. As usual, another excellent performance by Mr. Depp. Wasikowska as Alice didn’t do a whole lot for me. I felt she was kind of dull and made a pretty drowsy protagonist with her lack of emotion and feeling. But looks wise, you can certainly see why she was cast. Bonham Carter played a very good totalitarian, barking orders left and right and screaming her head off from start to finish. At times the constant yelling and screaming was a tad annoying, she reminded me a spoiled little child in a toy store who isn’t getting his or her way. But, I suppose being a ruthless Queen in the literature, that’s just what the character had to do in order to be realistic.

Now as far as Alice In Wonderland‘s story is concerned, this is an aspect that can lead patrons to disliking the movie. In order to avoid this, I think it has to be understood what kind of content is actually found inside the books Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, the two books Burton has based his movie on. These stories, which were penned by Lewis Carroll, are arguably the two biggest representatives of the genre “Literary Nonsense.” They are exactly what the genre says they are, a bunch of garbled nonsense, thrown together to make a story that severely lacks direction, and all in all doesn’t make any sense at all. Burton wanted his movie to stray away from that. He said he wanted his movie to feel like it was telling a story, unlike the books where random events are just happening with no explanation or reasoning as to why they are happening.

For what Burton chose to work with, he did a great job. It couldn’t have been easy to write this script. I for one feel that turning literary nonsense into a major motion picture might just be the hardest thing to do in all of cinema. Tip your hat to Burton, because he did it, and he did it beautifully. Did he do it perfectly? Personally, no. There is still some aimless dialogue and it could frustrate patrons that don’t have an open mind and want their hands held while trying to follow the movie’s plot. But depending on whom you are, you may wind up seeing this as a hat tip to Lewis Carroll, giving the movie that authentic “nonsensical” feeling. Alice In Wonderland seems like a book that was just begging for Burton to make into a movie, since his movies and Carroll’s visions both share that same “trippy” sensation. Now that Burton’s done it, go see it. It’ll all make sense at the end, and your eyes will be grateful that you did.

Closing Statement
Marketed extremely heavily since summertime, Alice In Wonderland is first and foremost a visual delight that will not let you down. From a story standpoint, you could wind up feeling like you’re on whatever it was Lewis Carroll was on when he penned his nonsense, if you allow the visuals to be the only thing you pay attention to. Open your minds like Alice, and take this trip with her down the rabbit’s hole into Underland. If you don’t, the Red Queen may sick the Jabberwocky on you and holler “Off with your head!” You wouldn’t want that would you?

The Verdict
8/10

9

OPENING: 09/09/2009

STUDIO: Focus Features

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
1 to protect us. 2 to inspire us. 3 to define us. 4 to teach us. 5 to guide us. 6 to lead us. 7 to defend us. 8 to guard us. 9 to save us.

Opening Statement
I have not seen Shane Acker’s acclaimed short film 9, which apparently wowed quite a lot of folks with its inventive vision of a post-apocalyptic world. However, when I saw the theatrical trailer for Acker’s feature-length adaptation, I was certainly intrigued. The animation appeared to be genuinely original and innovative, and I looked forward to exploring more of that world. While the visuals in the 78-minute version of 9 are indeed quite impressive, it’s disappointing to discover there isn’t much substance beneath the style.

Facts of the Case
The film opens on our protagonist, a small, mechanical, human-like stitch work figure (voiced by Elijah Wood, The Lord of the Rings) with the number 9 painted on his back. From this point on, we’ll just refer to him as "Number 9." Number 9 has just woken up and doesn’t quite seem to know who he is or what his purpose is. He wanders outside and sees a barren wasteland. It would appear that all of humanity has been wiped out. Number 9 soon discovers Number 2 (Martin Landau, Ed Wood), another stitch work figure who greets Number 9 with warmth and kindness. Unfortunately, Number 2 is quickly snatched up by a horrible mechanical beast and taken away.

Number 9 is understandably distraught, but soon encounters others much like himself who have set up a little colony of sorts. It’s led by Number 1 (Christopher Plummer, Inside Man), a stern leader who insists the best plan is to wait and hide until the mechanical beast stops functioning. Number 9 is appalled by such cowardly thinking, and attempts to convince the others in the colony that they should stage a rescue. Even if he can convince the others to battle the beast and whatever other terrors await in this post-apocalyptic world, do the little figures stand a chance against such overwhelming odds?

The Evidence
It is perhaps a tribute to Shane Acker’s artistic vision that he was able to get this film greenlit with such a flimsy plot. It is a maddeningly repetitive series of contrivances which allow three things to happen over and over again. First, a character is captured. Second, the remaining characters argue about whether or not to rescue the captured character. Third, at least some of the remaining characters do indeed decide to engage in a rescue attempt, setting up the next big battle scene. This formula is repeated from start to finish, with the beasts getting more intimidating each time, until we reach the inevitable battle to end all battles and a surprisingly hokey pseudo-spiritual conclusion.

To get all these situations up and running, the characters are required to be disappointingly stupid. It’s clear these little stitch work figures are capable of great intelligence, as demonstrated by some of their innovative ideas and thoughtful conversations. Number 9 generally seems to be the brightest, but does the single most foolish thing in the entire film (you’ll know what I mean when you see it). After a while, it’s hard to feel terribly sorry for the characters, considering they have brought many of these miseries upon themselves.

Still, the film is not an agonizing watch, simply because Acker and his animation team do such a fine job of keeping us fascinated with their design work. Number 9 and his brethren are such nuanced creations, each seeming to be the product of much thought and loving craftsmanship. Number 6 (Crispin Glover, Beowulf) is a peculiar eccentric with a tendency to draw the same key image over and over. Number 5 (John C. Reilly, Boogie Nights) is a one-eyed simpleton who seems to be the gentlest of the group. Number 7 (Jennifer Connelly, A Beautiful Mind) is a sleek-looking action hero whose facial expressions suggest she is living in her own personal Bond film. Number 1 somehow oozes arrogant menace even when he isn’t speaking, and his right-hand man Number 8 (Fred Tatasciore, Wolverine and the X-Men) seems to have twice as much bulk and half as many brains as anyone else. There is a level of expressiveness in these characters which has rarely been matched in animation, and that is an achievement worth noting.

Unfortunately, the monstrous robots aren’t nearly as compelling. These red-eyed drones feel like a mash-up of similarly intimidating creatures from Terminator: Salvation, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica, with a generous dose of steampunk thrown in for good measure. They exhibit no personality or elegance during their attacks, they’re merely anonymous if elaborate creations who seem to attack without any pre-set strategy or game plan. The action scene animation is perfectly fluid and engaging, but becomes tiresome. I wanted to know more about why someone decided to invent these machines and the stitch work people in the first place, the decisions made that led humanity to its destruction, and almost anything other than what we’re actually given. There were dozens of questions running through my mind, and the film only bothered to answer the ones I had no real interest in.

Closing Statement
Though 9 is a very disappointing film, I still believe Shane Acker is someone to keep an eye on. For instance, consider the career of Tim Burton (who serves as a producer of this film). It was clear from the very beginning that Burton had a distinct visual style and an original voice, but it took some time before he was able to fuse that style with equally impressive storytelling. Perhaps, as time passes, Acker’s filmmaking will evolve in a similar manner. In the meantime, 9 is only worth a look for animation aficionados who want to examine the technical achievements of the film. Those seeking an enjoyable sci-fi adventure will be sorely disappointed.

The Verdict
5/10