Posts tagged review
Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau
Mar 17th
“The Adjustment Bureau” is like a nerdy kid answering an existential question — initially the complexity and excitement of his response is captivating, but slowly you realize he is not going to stop rambling.
The film follows David Norris (Matt Damon), a young politician who stumbles upon an organization, the Adjustment Bureau, which controls humanity’s progress.
The intricacies of the bureau question free will in modern society. But the idea loses its credibility when the bureau begins vaguely discussing how its members are like humans, but live longer, like angelic versions of Tolkien’s elves.
The core of the story focuses on Norris’s pursuit of Elise (Emily Blunt) and the pair’s fight against the bureau’s attempt to keep them apart. The chemistry between Blunt and Damon is awkward and alternates between playfully flashing middle fingers to overly dramatic statements of eternal love.
The romance tries to sell the strength of love by overriding the film’s ability to explore the bureau itself. The bureau’s members hint at their backgrounds and discuss the longevity of the bureau but leave most of these vagaries as part of their obnoxiously mystic nature.
Despite the romance, the action flourishes with racing through doors that serve as portals to different areas of the world and gives high-speed chasing a whole new dimension.
The film taps into the idea of free will with a bureau that has the potential to raise philosophical questions a la “Lost.” But like an overly enthusiastic kid, it overdoes the idea by rapidly cramming more information at us than one, or even two movies, could handle.
From www.dailytarheel.com
Review: Midnight movie ‘Attack The Block’ is an instant genre classic
Mar 14th
AUSTIN – Joe Cornish is a name that may not be familiar to genre audiences around the world, but all of that is set to change with the release of his remarkable new film “Attack The Block,” a spirited mix of teen gang drama, SF monster movie, and hero’s journey, told in a dense vernacular and shot with the style of early vintage Carpenter. It is entirely successful, and it announces Cornish as someone worthy of attention and a long filmography.
Cornish, for those unfamiliar with his work, is probably best-known so far for his work on “The Adam and Joe Show” in the UK, but later this year, he’ll have a credit as the co-writer (with Edgar Wright) of “The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn,” and he and Wright are also still working on their “Ant-Man” script as well. None of the work he’s had produced in the past could have really prepared viewers for “Attack The Block,” though. It’s one of those films that feels like the work of a seasoned veteran, someone who had learned how to finesse their vision onto the bigscreen. It’s confident, it manages to blend genre with ease, and it coheres beautifully.
The film features a few familiar faces for fans of UK films. Jodie Whittaker was Peter O’Toole’s focus in “Venus,” and she’s also been seen in films like “Good” and “St. Trinian’s,” while co-star Luke Treadaway has shown up in “Heartless” and “Clash Of The Titans.” Probably the best-known cast-member is Nick Frost, but don’t go into “Attack The Block” expecting anything like his earlier films or roles. This movie’s far more interested in the largely unknown cast that is front and center, a bunch of inner-city kids growing up in UK public housing blocks. They are a convenient demon for the press, the English equivalent to the South Central LA kids of the ’90s, bad guys by virtue of where they live and how they look.
As in those LA gang movies, there is a code of behavior and dress and even language that unites the kids of “Attack The Block,” and it feels completely authentic. These are not the kids that filmmakers cast as heroes in their movies, and that’s exactly what Cornish has done here. It feels radical, and I would imagine that when this opens in the UK in May, there will be a ferocious response from people who have never seen themselves in this sort of film before.
The film begins with a mugging. Led by Moses (John Boyega), a group of teenage boys corner Sam (Whittaker) in the street and take her phone, her purse, and even a ring she’s wearing. She tries to fight back, but just as things are about to get out of hand, something falls from the sky and destroys a car. Sam uses the moment to escape, and Moses decides to investigate the wreckage. A strange creature of some sort erupts from the smoking car, scratching Moses in the process, and he leads his friends in a hunt for it. They find it in a storage shed and kill it. Once it’s dead, they get a good long look at what obviously didn’t come from anyplace on Earth, and they decide to keep the corpse and try to make some money off of it.
That’s really just the first ten minutes, and in just those first few scenes, you get a real sense of how these kids work together, how they rely on one another, and the way they play both to and against stereotype. Cornish turns the stakes up quickly, as more things start to fall from the sky, and the design of the things that come out of these other crash sites are much bigger and much scarier than the thing the boys killed. They also seem determined to find Moses and his boys, no matter how many people they have to tear through to do it.
The film is wildly effective, and part of the reason it works so well is because Cornish keeps things moving while still giving his characters time to breathe. They never feel like a laundry list of victims waiting for their turn to be eaten by whatever generic monster is stalking them. Instead, the people all feel real, and the dynamics between them are constantly shifting. Eventually Sam and Moses run into each other again, and despite the mugging that starts the film, a common ground is found, and Cornish uses their connection to explore the way everyone trades in stereotype, believing whatever’s easy for them in order to justify their own behavior. Like the very best genre films, Cornish isn’t just telling you the story you see on surface here. There are bigger things on his mind, and he is gifted enough to let the subtext speak for itself while letting the text simply work as pure visceral experience.
I’ve read concerns that the film’s accents will render it impenetrable to a mainstream audience, but I don’t believe for a second. There is so much inherent attitude to the performances that even if you don’t understand every syllable, you understand exactly what’s being communicated. I didn’t have any trouble with either accents or slang, and I think any distributor who passes this one up simply because the kids don’t speak like Americans is a fool. A straight-up, no excuses fool. This is as commercial a genre film as anyone will make this year, indie or studio, and there is an audience out there that will eat it up. And anyone who talks about remaking it instead of releasing it? Double fool, and they deserve terrible things involving grizzly gears and their lower regions to happen to them. Lightning will not strike twice. This movie does not need to remade. Absolutely nothing will be gained from doing so.
Overall, the film is a collection of great choices that add up. His score by Basement Jaxx and Steven Price will make any John Carpenter fan giddy with joy, as will the cinematography by newcomer Thomas Townend, whose work evokes the wet-pavement slick of vintage Dean Cundey. Even so, this isn’t a case of nostalgia packaged as a movie. “Attack The Block” may be the sort of film where you can pull apart the DNA to find traces of “The Warriors” and “Gremlins” and “Over The Edge” and “The Thing,” but it has its own voice, and it never trades on easy references or simple nods. The design of the creatures is impressive, as is the execution of them, and when the stakes continue to escalate, Cornish makes you feel it. He wants it to matter. After all, if there’s no real danger, and if you don’t care about the people you’re watching, then there is no payoff. And “Attack The Block,” more than anything else it does well, delivers a payoff. It is one of the purest film pleasures I’ve encountered in a while, and the only real problem I have with it is that I want a new Joe Cornish movie tomorrow.
Pretty good problem to have, if you ask me.
From www.hitfix.com
SXSW Review: Attack The Block Could Be The Best Action Movie Of The Year
Mar 13th
The midnight screening is a sacred ritual of South by Southwest. The festival is known for sniffing out movies with a strong visual flair and a penchant for cinematic geekery. British comedian/writer Joe Cornish’s debut feature Attack the Block couldn’t fit more perfectly into that mold. Tipping its hat to classic ’80s horror films (Critters, Gremlins come to mind), the film infuses moments of comedic levity into a dark, dangerous monster movie. The result: an alien invasion where you actually give a damn about the folks being invaded.
Block follows a group of teen criminals in South London who roam the dimly lit streets and stir up trouble. On one particular evening, the gang corners Sam (Jodie Whittaker) and the group’s ringleader Moses (John Boyega) threatens with a knife before running off with her money and jewelry. The moment leaves Sam jarred and the audience with an unsympathetic look at the ruthless youngins — but when a slew of aliens crash land on the crew’s block, Moses, Sam, Brewis (Luke Treadaway), a local burnout, and the rest of the ragtag group of kids team up and put aside differences to defend themselves (and the city) from invasion.
Battle: Los Angeles this is not. Cornish’s film finds a balance in scope to keep the action moving while showcasing the brilliant, hilarious and realistic teen actors. There’s a surprising amount of smaller-scale, alien attack action in Attack the Block and Cornish’s crack team of make-up and visual effects artists pull out all the stops. The film is quickly paced and never lets up — if the characters aren’t holed up in a barricaded apartment, whipping up a plan, they’re being chased by the shadowy monsters. Of course, not everyone out runs the aliens, and Cornish doesn’t skimp on the bloody mayhem. Attack the Block is surprisingly gory, reminiscent of old school Peter Jackson movies like Dead Alive. The kills in the movie will instigate an audible, pleasantly shocked yelp. 
Edgar Wright, director of Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, served as Executive Producer on Attack the Block and the similarities to his films are apparent. The movie isn’t just an homage to the films Cornish loves, nor is it a straight up horror/action movie. There’s an emphasis on honest relationships that is rarely seen in genre films, but a welcome one at that. Moses is challenged by his perception of “the block,” through his growing relationship with Sam, his best friends his random encounters with side characters, like a pot dealer played by Wright-staple Nick Frost. Watching people run in terror, be ripped apart by extraterrestrial fangs and blow up aliens with fireworks is cool, it’s even better when the final payoff is personal growth, through kicking alien butt.
Attack the Block could be easily compared to Shaun of the Dead, especially with Wright’s involvement, but it’s a monster all its own. The film is exhilarating, thanks in part to first time cinematographer Thomas Townend’s colorful photography and a pulsing score by DJ duo Basement Jaxx. Joe Cornish is an emerging talent and Attack the Block, even on its small scale, may wind up as one of the best action movies of the year.
Watch for more from Austin’s South By Southwest Film Festival coming soon right here.
From www.cinemablend.com
Battle: Los Angeles Movie Review
Mar 12th
Battle: Los Angeles is a war movie that just happens to have aliens from outer space as the antagonists. It’s a love letter to the U.S. military – the Marines in particular – disguised as a sci-fi action film. And when the characters aren’t spouting ridiculously cliched dialogue, it’s not half-bad.
Unfortunately, while great attention was paid to getting the military aspects of the story right, very little attention seems to have been paid to giving the actors anything to say that doesn’t sound as though it’s lifted from classic war films.
Read the full review: Battle: LA film review
Related Links:
- Battle: LA photo gallery
- Trailers
- Top 10 aliens on Earth films
Follow Hollywood Movies – Twitter | Facebook
(Photo from Battle: LA © Columbia Pictures)
From movies.about.com
REVIEW: My, what little bite ‘Red Riding Hood’ has
Mar 11th
Once upon a time there was a brave, little movie critic who ventured alone into the deep, dark Cineplex. He was lured there by the prospects of seeing a classic fairy tale retold with a stylish, modern twist. Lo, for what he found instead was the bland, silly and utterly lifeless “Red Riding Hood.”
Our brave, little movie critic initially felt hopeful at the prospects of a tweaking of the original tale. Sadly such stories exist in the public domain and are free to fall into the clutches of wicked studio executives who are obligated to pay no one for their rights and use them to turn a quick buck.
It was this last little tidbit that should have alerted our hero to leave a trail of heavily-buttered popcorn kernels behind him to facilitate a hasty escape.
Alas, he was none the wiser when he took his seat and the film unspooled before him. At first all appeared to be in order as the camera swept over a vaguely-European, medieval village to meet up with the charming and buxom Red Riding Hood (boasting the Christian name of Valerie), played by the generally agreeable Amanda Seyfried.
The rest of the cast filled out rather nicely, with Billy Burke and Virginia Madsen as Valerie’s parents and Julie Christie as the plot-important grandmother who lives alone in the woods.
The plot unfolded acceptably enough as the town is terrorized by the specter of a big, bad wolf who one day decides to attack and kill Valerie’s sister.
Our brave, little movie critic was even heartened at the appearance of the beloved Gary Oldman who (almost) makes any movie better just by showing up.
Alas, it quickly became apparent that “Red Riding Hood” was beyond saving even as Oldman’s Father Soloman warns the townsfolk that it is no normal wolf that stalks them, but is instead a werewolf that lives in their village.
Against this backdrop of a flawed who-done-it, a clunky love-triangle develops between Valerie, her betrothed and bland blacksmith Henry (Max Irons) and bad-boy, tree cutter Peter (Shiloh Fernandez).
The brave, little movie critic cast the blame for this debacle at the feet of director Catherine Harwicke, who also brought the pox of “Twilight” upon the world.
Here she manages to conjure up an even shallower attempt to loosen the pocketbooks of 14-year-old girls by favoring style over substance and hunky boys staring dreamily into the camera over any trace of actual relationships.
It was then that our brave, little movie critic had enough and stood and shouted into the darkness, “‘Red Riding Hood,’ what horrible plotting you have.”
“The better to bore you with, my dear,” it replied.
The brave, little movie critic tried again. “‘Red Riding Hood,’ what brutally stilted and unnatural dialogue you have.”
“The better to make you squirm uncomfortably in your seat with, my dear,” it replied.
“‘Red Riding Hood,’ what awkward performances you have,” said the brave, little movie critic.
“The better to destroy the careers of well-respected actors with, my dear,” it said.
And with that our brave, little movie critic could only hope for a woodsman to arrive to chop an escape hole through the back of the theater.
Alas, our hero was forced to endure through the goofy conclusion, left only to run out into the streets warning away others from wasting their hard-earned shekels on such a shallow film and pleading with the heavens for two hours of his life back.
The end.
“Red Riding Hood” is rated PG-13 for violence and creature terror, and some sensuality.
From www.stltoday.com
Huff Post Review: Battle: Los Angles (2011)
Mar 11th
Battle: Los Angeles
2011
116 minutes
rated PG-13
by Scott Mendelson
Rare is the movie that loses points for being too realistic. But Jonathan Liebesman’s alien invasion picture feels less like an epic and more like a genuinely plausible war picture. This is not a bad thing, and the film is generally successful at showing what the military response to such a domestic threat might be. The film is basically Black Hawk Down, with the faceless marauders being from outer-space instead of militant indignant people. While the marketing promises scale, the film merely delivers claustrophobic survival with no real deeper meaning that would give the carnage any real weight. Liebesman gets the details seemingly right, but the end result is a war picture where the fact that the invaders are from ‘up there’ seems almost beside the point.
The plot is pretty simple. Alien forces have invaded the entire Earth, with complete annihilation on their would-be minds. Countless major cities have already fallen, and the film focuses on a single platoon sent into Los Angeles to search for survivors and transport them to safety. Joining the mission just before his retirement is SSgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who is now forced to serve alongside those who still resent his decision making during the Iraq occupation, which led to several of his men being killed. That’s basically it. The film wastes little time on setup or fleshing out the various servicemen who will be in harm’s way, and the stakes are established pretty quickly. We get only the barest details on Nantz’s fellow soldiers: one has a pregnant wife, one is about to get married, one has a brother who was killed under Nantz’s command, etc. Like Black Hawk Down and Gettysburg, the film is entirely concerned with the planning and execution of armed conflict.
All of the acting is exactly as good as it needs to be. There are no real ‘big scenes’, which also means a genuine lack of melodrama. Along the way, we meet a handful of refugees and TSgt. Elena Santos (Michelle Rodriguez), a sole survivor from a decimated squad who may have information on how to better defend against the alien menace. But the core of the film is about the difficulty of merely getting from point A to point B without loss of life. This leaves the film a bit adrift in the second and third acts, as we are constantly told that ‘once they get HERE’, then they’ll be safe’, only to have the goal post moved yet again. The film is nearly two hours long, yet the set-up is dispensed with in the first twenty-minutes or so, leaving an extended middle act of episodic incident and an entire last act that is one false ending after another.
For most of the film, we see the invasion from the soldiers’ point of view, seeing only what they would witness as they go from house to house to find safe transportation. The film does occasionally cheat, showing us wide shots of full-scale alien destruction, if only so the trailers would have something to advertise. While the majority of the film feels claustrophobic and rather contained, the finale does open up the scale quite a bit and delivers on the promised ‘money shots’. But for most of the running time, Battle: Los Angeles comes frighteningly close to resembling one of those seemingly epic action/horror stories that takes place in a few cheap interior locations. Like any number of films that tries to look more expensive than they are, there is much that is merely suggested rather than shown, and you rarely get a feel for the large-scale nature of the operation until the finale. To be fair, the film does eventually get pretty big right in time for the end.
Having said all of that, the film has a certain apparent realism that gives it credibility. While (generally speaking) characters die in just about the order you would expect them to, there is a jolting offhand nature to the carnage. Perhaps because of a need to secure a PG-13, more than a few major characters die in relatively obtuse, nearly-offscreen fashions, leaving us to only realize who perished when we take a moment to notice who isn’t standing (to be fair, that is probably how it goes in real combat as well…). While the film is indeed relatively light on blood and gore, it does not skimp on showing the lives lost in the carnage. Unlike, say, Cloverfield, there are dead bodies everywhere. And there is an extended scene where the soldiers capture a wounded creature and basically perform a live dissection in order to find a weak spot. It’s a creepy moment, but it really has no pay-off in the later narrative.
In the end, Battle: Los Angeles is pretty successful at what it sets out to do, but the picture often fails to engage beyond surface level technical pleasures. Those wanting an alien invasion picture on the scale of Independence Day will be sorely disappointed, as the film truly focuses only on the carnage affecting Los Angeles as opposed to worldwide destruction. It lacks any deeper meaning and thus lacks relevance. Still, as a war picture that just happens to involve out-of-this-world enemies, it is relentlessly grim and frighteningly plausible, even as it lacks the emotion that its marketing offered up (again, blame the trailer music). It is not a bad picture but (and I may be the only critic who writes the following sentence), as a fan of Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning, I was expecting a little more.
Grade: B-
Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson
From www.huffingtonpost.com
Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
Mar 11th
Cold and isolated is the best way to describe director Cary Fukunaga’s Gothic romance based on Charlotte Bronte’s classic 19th century novel; a novel I’ve unfortunately never read. But despite my unfamiliarity with Bronte’s prose, it’s quite easy to recognize when screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) borrows straight from the book, just as it’s easy to be impressed by those times when words aren’t necessary to express what the characters are feeling thanks to a pair of standout performances.
Fukunaga’s direction of Jane Eyre is the dark sister to Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice. Both are literary staples featuring strong female protagonists at their core and both feature actresses worthy of acclaim for their characterizations of those lead characters.
Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) stars as Jane, and brings to her character such a perfect balance of strength and timidity you can’t help but fall under her spell. We first meet her fleeing across the countryside. Caught in a pounding rain storm she soon falls at the doorstep of the young pastor St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who shows her a caring hand.
From here we get brief glimpses at her tumultuous childhood and her time at an all girls school as eight years quickly pass by. She begins work as a governess at Thornfield Hall where she cares for a young French girl and ultimately falls in love with her employer, Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).
Fassbender and Wasikowska are perfect in the two lead roles. Their characters’ lonely and isolated souls feed into the initially despairing story line. As Jane and Edward grow closer so does the audience to the story. There’s a slow and steely build to this narrative and the words of Emily Bronte (or at least I am assuming they are words lifted directly from her novel) flow like silk as traded from Jane and Edward’s lips to our ears.
Wasikowska’s performance is strong and in control. As Jane she’s required to stand tall in the presence of the initially fearsome Rochester. However, only fearsome to the audience it would seem as Jane holds her own and then some. Wasikowska’s work here doesn’t come across like a performance, but rather a fully developed character you don’t have the slightest inkling to question, and Fassbender is with her every step of the way. There’s something in the eyes of both actors. Twice one asks the other, “What, nothing to say?” and just as each offers a well-timed reply, their faces at each moment say just as much.
My earlier comparison to Joe Wright’s 2005 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice goes deeper than the fact we’re talking about two 19th Century novels. Like Wright, Fukunaga depends on composer Dario Marinelli for a quietly haunting score and even Judi Dench plays a part in both, here as Thornfield’s reliable housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.
Where Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice diverge is in the tone and nature of the story. Jane Eyre plays like an artistic ghost story, complete with a jump scare of its own and things that go bump in the night. Of course, there is nothing spectral about this story and to go too far with the claim it’s a frightener would be disingenuous. Yet, there’s definitely a menacing tone to certain corners of this story and Fukunaga isn’t afraid of keeping those corners in view, even if they are only kept visible by the gentle lap of a candle’s flame.
The film, however, is not without its faults. Most notably, the early pacing of the story. Jane’s childhood years are told through flashback and while the story ultimately comes together quite well, the flashbacks seem ill-timed and, occasionally, abrupt. It’s obvious the attempt to condense Bronte’s story was the cause for this. Had the screenplay structure been developed any other way the story would have felt incredibly rushed. The fractured narrative allows for the stretching of the timeline without wasting actual running time. Yet, it still feels like a scene or two are missing around the time Jane leaves school to when she becomes governess at Thornfield.
I was also disappointed certain story lines, such as that of Jamie Bell’s St. John Rivers, are so quickly forgotten and never again touched upon. This, again, seems to be due to the flashbacks and the goal of keeping the running time as close to two house as possible, but it would have been nice to get a little closure with regard to certain situations.
Everything said, Jane Eyre remains a film worth seeing. It’s not as tightly bound as I would have liked, it has some bumps in the beginning and the end, but the middle-third is quite good and the performances are reason enough to give it a watch.
From www.ropeofsilicon.com
‘Battle: Los Angeles’ movie review
Mar 11th
Twenty major cities around the world have been attacked by metal-sheathed extraterrestrials, yet this shoot’em-up focuses on only one steaming slice of L.A. County. While the movie occasionally pulls back for a wider view, it emphasizes the effects of the intergalactic brawl on a lone Marine patrol, led by no-nonsense Staff Sgt. Mike Nantz (chasm-chinned Aaron Eckhart).
The repetitive point-and-shoot story line suggests an M-rated video game, but the movie’s pounding symphonic score and irony-free outlook are closer to World War II B-movies. So are its lack of humor and embrace of cliche. Nantz, for example, is tormented by memories of the men he lost in Iraq and has just received his discharge papers when the brutal ETs attack.
Did somebody mention Iraq? “Battle’s” depiction of block-by-block urban combat against an implacable, enigmatic foe evokes Baghdad at its bloodiest. But director Jonathan Liebesman (whose background is in horror flicks) isn’t interested in allegory, nuance or social comment. He just wants to line up platinum-plated space-squids to be blown away.
Pressed back into service, Nantz will inevitably prove himself to his mistrustful troops with his valor and ingenuity. At one point, he even rappels out of a chopper with the intention of single-handedly defeating the most destructive alien force to assault Earth since, well, “Skyline.”
Nantz and his boys – and a female straggler, Air Force non-com Elena Santos (Michelle Rodriguez) – escort civilians out of the battle zone. The troops suffer heavy casualties, but don’t worry about the children the troops rescued. This close to Hollywood, nobody’s going to let any kids die. Instead, Nantz declares one boy, Hector, an honorary member of the patrol, informing him solemnly that “Marines don’t quit.” If “Battle” rates a sequel, expect to see Hector a few years older and in a Marine uniform.
As in “The War of the Worlds,” the story turns on the secret vulnerability of the alien scourges. These invaders are so powerful that you may wonder why they bother to engage in street fighting with puny humans. But they must have a weakness.
H.G. Wells did it better. This movie spends so much yawn-inducing time on variations of the same combat scenario that its final showdown feels rushed. That’s why “Battle: Los Angeles” would have worked better as a video game. Viewers who adore the bang-bang could have sustained it for weeks. And the rest of us could have looked up the cheat codes and jumped straight to the anticlimactic ending.
Jenkins is a freelance reviewer.
PG-13. At area theaters. Contains intense war violence and destruction and profanity. 116 minutes.
From www.washingtonpost.com
Movie review: Battle: LA la dee dah
Mar 11th
Battle: LA
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Ramon Rodriguez, Ne-Yo, Bridget Moynahan and Micheal Pena
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Parental advisory: frequent violence
Running time: 116 minutes
Rating: Two stars out of five
VANCOUVER — Though it’s a whole lot more than an extended advertisement for the U.S. Marine Corps, Battle: LA might as well come with an assault rifle, battle fatigues and a Semper Fi tattoo.
From heroic shots of bloodied men with chiselled features standing victorious in the sunlight, to a plot involving a young boy who is dubbed an honorary soldier, this Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) film feels like a motivational speech for the civilian militia — and, given the funding issues in Tinseltown these days, it may well be.
On the artificially gritty surface, Battle: LA appears to be a simple, straight-ahead science-fiction movie about an alien invasion of the United States — and, to a much lesser degree, the rest of the world.
The frenetic opening salvo in this loud and aggressive movie without believable soul features a full-on alien landing off the shores of Venice Beach, California. An armada of spacecraft blow through Earth’s atmosphere, leaving giant smoke rings in their wake as they prepare to annihilate the entire human race.
For a brief moment, there was a thought of diplomacy — which isn’t even presented on screen — but intelligent inter-species dialogue fails, leaving humans no alternative but to fight, and light up every single weapon in our swollen arsenals.
That’s pretty much the whole movie: an extended shootout between warm-hearted human soldiers, played with off-the-rack masculine sensibilities, and a horde of insect-like invaders with no emotional palette whatsoever.
At least in a movie like District 9, which completely and brilliantly reinvented the genre by humanizing the Other, the creepy “prawns” were given genuine dimension — even when they were presented as villains.
Battle: LA doesn’t even try to give us the “Other side.” The aliens are not featured in close-ups. They have no eyes or recognizably human parts, and they are biologically fused to their weapons.
Liebesman almost seems to go out of his way to make them as monstrous and one-dimensional as possible in order to remove any latent bout of guilt, and engage in the blood lust that fuels this entire film.
Meanwhile, the soldiers are rendered in almost classical proportions as they bravely battle the enemy.
Thanks to Aaron Eckhart in the lead role of Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz, a marine who lost his company on his last tour, Battle: LA feels sincere as it attempts to pump us up for war.
Nantz is the career soldier who loves his country, and his men, with unflinching loyalty. Even when some of the men put him down for the number of casualties on his last mission, he proves himself a man by facing up to each backstab, and removing the blade before the eyes of his attacker.
Eckhart is so earnest as the crisis-stricken Nantz, he strips Battle: LA of any tongue-in-cheek tone it may have had, and replaces it with pure male melodrama — which brings up another snag, and genre comparison.
At least a movie like Independence Day was fun to watch, as it pitted aliens against the human race because it disrespected all brands of authority, and literally blew up the White House.
Battle: LA has the tone of a Bible movie directed by Mel Gibson, only without any grasp of showmanship.
If Liebesman was hoping his audience would ignore the obvious propagandist nature of his movie as a result of sheer entertainment value, he was sadly mistaken, because this movie isn’t all that entertaining.
Despite endless pyrotechnics and fancy digital effects, the movie is entirely monotonous, as it features a group of soldiers trying to make it back to base before an air strike destroys several square blocks of the city, and before the aliens blow them to smithereens with their futuristic weapons.
It’s all cat and mouse without an interesting cat, or a group of interesting vermin. All the soldiers are cookie-cutter stereotypes looking to emulate the heroism we see in Second World War reels, where duty, honour and a righteous death before one’s peers is the height of human achievement.
Liebesman appropriates documentary camera techniques to make it all feel real and immediate, but really, he just makes the audience queasy with his peripatetic point-of-view shots.
By the time we get to the climax, we don’t really care that much about anyone — not even our brave Marine walking in the footsteps of John Wayne — because Liebesman can’t weave a single believable emotional thread through this senseless mess of computer-generated violence.
Moreover, he doesn’t have a single new idea. We’ve seen the alien-invasion story so many times now, we need a new wrinkle to make it work. District 9 found a new twist, as does the forthcoming Paul.
Battle: LA is stale from start to finish, which means it may not be great viewing, but it is a rather fitting statement on the state of Tinseltown, and what appears to be an all-out siege against the creative spirit.
kmonk@postmedia.com
twitter.com/katherinemonk
From www.vancouversun.com
Movie review: ‘I Will Follow’
Mar 11th
Set over the course of a single day, as a woman moves items out of the home she had been sharing with her recently deceased aunt, “I Will Follow” looks to capture the way seemingly little things can acquire tremendous emotional weight. TV shows saved on a DVR, old photos, the way light comes through a window at a certain time of day — anything can become a trigger to memory and grief, the most mundane things perhaps most of all.
Written and directed by Ava DuVernay, her debut feature film shows a certain amount of promise but often falls prey to easy emotional beats and an overall sentimentality when it should push for moments less obvious, more rare, true and insightful. The structure, sliding between memories evoked by objects in the house and the common difficulties of moving day, should play with more elegance than it does. Instead, it feels awkward and frequently — as does the film on the whole — too on the nose, too obvious.
When the film tries to lighten the mood is when it stumbles most badly. It feels hollow and forced when characters debate the finer points of the discographies of Jay-Z vs. Nas and (somewhat surprisingly, given the film’s middle-class African American milieu) the minutiae of U2. (The film’s title comes from a song by the Irish rock band.) A romantic interlude as the day turns to evening also feels out of place.
“I Will Follow” is the kind of film it feels bad to say anything negative about, because it so obviously comes from a place of good intentions and sincere efforts. But good intentions on their own do not make for a satisfying movie.
calendar@latimes.com
From www.latimes.com
