Mar 24 2011

PCN Editorial: A Marine’s perspective on ‘Battle:Los Angeles’

It’s been bringing in the bucks at the boxoffice, had one of America’s esteemed critics call it a movie made for idiots, and incited alot of divided feelings among movie geeks here on the internet. Battle: Los Angeles might just be another popcorn movie, but it’s not just fading away or out of sight just yet. Personally, I had a good time with the movie and have felt the performance of Aaron Eckhart growing on me since the first viewing.

In fact, I’ve considered altering my original review. Ultimately, I shelved that folly in favor of printing another take on the film. This one from an PCN regular Xiphos, who has served the United States for many years as a Marine and has his own thougrhts on Battle: L.A. If you think his military service automatically qualifies a rave review, think again. Xi is the hardest critic of war pictures I’ve ever seen, and he’s found something in Battle Los Angeles that’s worth latching onto. Enough from me though, enjoy….

XIPHOS EXPLAINS WHY BATTLE L.A. IS A KICK-ASS WAR FILM

Battle: Los Angeles is an excellent movie unfairly and untruthfully maligned by well known critics and online wanna-be well known critics. Because of the flagrant and outright lies being ascribed to Battle: Los Angeles, Mr. Bartleby asked me to write a review for the movie because I am in the United States Marine Corps. Let me be up front here. Because I’m doing the same job as depicted in the movie isn’t why I am going to defend the movie. I am sticking up for the movie because it’s well crafted and is better than it has any right to be and well crafted movies from Hollywood are an increasingly rare event so excellent movies need to be championed and not burdened by the lies and envy of reviewers.

How this review is going to work is that I am going to follow Ebert’s hatchet job and lie-filled review and refute it point by knife in the back point. At the end of the review, I am absolutely going to eviscerate the single most stupid and politically motivated attack on the movie which I have seen in many places, namely that Battle: LA is a recruitment tool for the United States Marine Corps. During the review I am going to use specific points from the movie to show that Ebert deliberately lied between the times he showed his complete ignorance of how the Marine Corps works and the intellectually laziness of his review. So if you have not seen Battle: LA and want to be spoiler free, go somewhere else and stop hanging out in movie review sites.

Battle: LA is about an Alien invasion of LA and in Ebert’s words it’s “noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don’t even try to make it more than senseless chaos.” In the immortal words of the useless baby boomer generation, if it’s too loud you’re too old and Ebert, you are a fossil whose time has passed. Could you please point me to a war movie or a war for that matter that is quite? I’ve been in a few and they’re loud. You have Marines firing M4 Rifles, M249, M204 40mm Grenade launchers, dropping M67 hand grenades, M9 Pistols and an AT-4 and using C4 which gives you primary and secondary explosions. You have Alien armament and human and Alien aircraft all of which are LOUD old man and the movie reflects this. It’s “violent”. Well DUH, it’s a war movie. Was the movie supposed to be a peaceful invasion movie?

How the heck does that work? Of course it’s violent. It’s an INVASION of Alien soldiers. The thought of a war movie not being violent is laughable in the extreme and shows that Ebert was grasping for anything he can find to bolster his already weak arguments against the movie. Uh Rog, how was the movie ugly? Santa Monica was getting destroyed and not just by the Aliens and by human fixed and rotary wing aircraft. I really don’t understand this argument at all. If it’s about the cinematography then Ol’ Rog is just flat out lying, the movie is beautifully shot. What cynicism? The movie is earnest and straight forward. You’re whining about senseless chaos in a war movie? I have news news for you Rog, war is chaotic and they capture this idea perfectly. Often times when you are a forward operating unit you don’t know what’s going on except for what’s right in front of you. It IS chaotic. Oh, and by the way Rog, the movie isn’t Sci Fi, it’s a straight up men-on-mission movie straight out of the 60′s studio pipe line. You could easily replace Alien raiders with Nazi, Japanese, Al Queda or Apaches. It’s not totally sci fi, it’s men with a dangerous job to do in unnatural brutal circumstances or as it’s known colloquially, WAR. It just uses sci fi tropes to stage the story.

So Rog, you need everything explained to you? Why would we know right off what the Aliens were up to? Sweet fancy Moses, this is picking at some very small nits. Especially since you have praised other movies that use ambiguity. Since you decided to dislike the movie from the get go you were happy to play the hypocrite card.

The Alien design needs a Razzie? How do we know those were the actual Aliens and not bio mechanical Alien soldiers? Because to me those things were expendable drones used as shock troops and nothing drives that point home than by the fact that they lost their air support when the commo hub was blown up. They were not the Aliens themselves, they were just worker bee’s like most of the prawns from District 9. Oh by the way, didn’t District 9 use a throw away line as to why the Aliens were in Jo Burgh? You liked that movie, didn’t you? The design of the Aliens troop and air assets were perfectly serviceable in the manner of what is know as “industrial”.

Here is the one point we will agree on before I disagree. Aaron Eckhart as SSGT Michael Nantz was phenomenal in the role. To me, Eckhart has never been much more than mayonnaise on white bread and nothing more but in Battle: LA, Eckhart found a whole other gear and was spectacularly believable as Nantz (although there is no way an obviously competent guy like Nantz would be a SSGT after 20 years but that is a minor quibble.) He was note perfect and found a depth to the character that was as surprising as it was moving. Eckhart did admirable and honorable work as SSGT Nantz.

The rest of the Red shirts and survivors of the squad (they were only a squad reinforced with an element from the weapons platoon. They were never a platoon. I’ll let you off on this one Rog since this mistake is on the writer) did good work with what they were given to do.  Let’s be clear here this movie belongs to Eckhart and to a lesser extent Michele Rodriquez, Michael Pena and Bridget Mondrian. The last two were essentially working a long cameo.

Rog. your comments about the dialogue are a flat out lie and you know it. Yes,  there was screamed dialogue DURING the combat scenes because you know combat is LOUD, you twerp, but you know that was less than 50% of the dialogue. More than 50% of the time conversation involving multiple words occurred. For instance, in the Santa Monica PD, in the house the Marines held up in before they reached the PD, at the convenience store after they cleared the PD, the FOB, the tunnels before the commo ship attack, etc. There were others times but I believe I have made my point. You should apologize for this lie and for the next one. Oh and the Nigerian “surgeon” isn’t a surgeon you fool, he was a Navy Hospital Corpsmen that is assigned to a Marine Infantry platoon. Traditionally Corpsmen are refereed to as “Doc”. Did they take your hearing out along with the jaw bone? It was explained in the flashback before the action started.

Here’s the next lie you should apologize for sir. You know perfectly well that the ship you are referring to was the command and control hub for the drones and not a battleship. You don’t have memory issues do you? You can remember the raiders came from space and have some more advance technology than earthlings, right? Yet you construct a straw man argument around this nonsensical issue? For shame Roger, for shame. Also the “cluttered” look on the attack drones (not battleships) looked to me like weapons platforms and propulsion hubs. I agree they weren’t “pretty” space ships but they were functional and deadly or did you miss that part?

The editing wasn’t lazy it was appropriate for the movie and it looked like it was a mix of steady and “shaky” cam. The mix gave the movie a suitable gritty and disorienting feel, when NEEDED. That is an important distinction to make since they don’t abuse shaky cam and quick editing. You want to see laughable editing techniques, look at Matt Damon in those awful Bourne movies. They try hide they fact that Damon can’t fight worth a bucket of spit by close-up shaky cam and fast cuts. That close-up style leaves the viewer disoriented and at a loss as to what is going on. In Battle: Los Angeles they kept the camera pulled back so it anchored the viewer with a sense of geography and you knew what was happening.

The Gunfight at the OK Corral? Geez Louise, you are a fan of straw man arguments, aren’t you? You are comparing a short relatively fast gunfight in a western to a war movie with sci fi elements? Rog, you really need to retire before you embarrass yourself any more. You know insulting people that disagree with your take on a movie isn’t the best way to go. In the case of Battle: Los Angeles, I am proud to accept the title of “idiot” from you for liking a well crafted well acted WAR movie with some emotional depth.

Lastly and probably the most offensively stupid notion about Battle: Los Angeles I saw was that somehow the movie is a recruitment to for the marine Corps. How? Did any of you genius reviewers see that the Marines took a physical and mental beating in the movie? And that most of the squad got killed along with one of the civilians? Did any of you ax grinders notice the toll that was extracted from SSGT Nantz? No, you were too busy figuring out how to quell the voices in your heads that said you were scared and weak and don’t pack the gear it takes to serve in the Navy let alone the United States Marine Corps.

By Nathan • Featured, Film • 2 • Tags: , , , , , , , , ,