"It's not a great movie, but it is a thriller ride, fairly realistic depiction of Marines, and very rough-even the camera movement is unsettling and not a carefully crafted Hollywood story... it's ANTI-AVATAR to the bone, and if it had subtitles it would say "F.U. James Cameron!”"
That was an email I received from a friend of mine Sunday night after he saw "Battle: Los Angeles." Up until my reading that, I wasn’t sure after seeing all the negative reviews from film critics bashing the $100 million plus budgeted alien invasion movie if I should go to a before noon showing Monday, where the price of admission would be five bucks or go after noon and pay the $7.50. I choose the before noon showing but even after seeing "Battle: L.A.," I probably wouldn’t have been too upset if I had paid the additional 2.50.
The reason had to do with the following comments my friend said about the film in a brief second paragraph that gave me some hope I wouldn’t walk out demanding close to two and a half hours (when you count in the previews) of my life back.
“Marines are great heroes,” he wrote. “Americans are caring people, and aliens are not giant peace-loving Smurfs but rather a predatory species looking for natural resources...It's the kind of movie that makes you ask..."Shouldn't we have more arms for our troops?"
My friend is not a fan of "Avatar" (2009). Neither, for that matter, am I. Now that I have seen "Battle: Los Angeles," which grossed $36 million opening weekend, I can verify his comment that it is “ANTI-AVATAR to the bone.” Unlike "Avatar" which was nothing more than a liberal bashing “I hate America – America is evil – America is responsible for 9/11 – America plunders other countries, in this case planets, of precious resources - Marines are gun-toting mercenaries for hire” blockbuster, "Battle: L.A." is the kind of movie John Wayne probably would have starred in just because it shows our nation’s armed forces performing the kinds of everyday heroics they continue to display on a daily basis overseas.
I thank God I cannot remember the less than a handful of negative Iraq war/war on terror themed movies that have been released over the past ten years. Like last year’s anti-Iraq war best picture winner, "The Hurt Locker" (2008), none of those films did any box office business. The reason was because of their negative portrait of America and our armed forces. Sure, I was happy when Kathryn Bigelow won the best director Oscar last year. When I heard her dedicate her win to the men and women serving overseas, however, I found it a little hypocritical since "The Hurt Locker" is anything but positive when it comes to the Iraq war. I just don’t believe one can say they are for the nation’s military and then bash the mission they have been sent to carry out.
I don’t know what director Jonathn Liebesman and screenwriter Christopher Bertolini’s intentions were when they made "Battle: Los Angeles" but the film offers two things: American patriotism and respect for our nation’s military, something sorely lacking in a lot of today’s liberal America bashing movies.
©3/15/11
The reason had to do with the following comments my friend said about the film in a brief second paragraph that gave me some hope I wouldn’t walk out demanding close to two and a half hours (when you count in the previews) of my life back.
“Marines are great heroes,” he wrote. “Americans are caring people, and aliens are not giant peace-loving Smurfs but rather a predatory species looking for natural resources...It's the kind of movie that makes you ask..."Shouldn't we have more arms for our troops?"
My friend is not a fan of "Avatar" (2009). Neither, for that matter, am I. Now that I have seen "Battle: Los Angeles," which grossed $36 million opening weekend, I can verify his comment that it is “ANTI-AVATAR to the bone.” Unlike "Avatar" which was nothing more than a liberal bashing “I hate America – America is evil – America is responsible for 9/11 – America plunders other countries, in this case planets, of precious resources - Marines are gun-toting mercenaries for hire” blockbuster, "Battle: L.A." is the kind of movie John Wayne probably would have starred in just because it shows our nation’s armed forces performing the kinds of everyday heroics they continue to display on a daily basis overseas.
At one point in the film, a Marine complements Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) for his “John Wayne” heroics in taking out one of the alien ships. Then someone asks, “Who’s John Wayne?”Perhaps the real question should not be “Who” but “Where’s John Wayne” when it comes to the lack of positive war movies where American forces are the heroes and not the enemy. I still have not seen Wayne’s Vietnam War movie, "The Green Berets" (1968), but what I do know is “The Duke” liked to portray his characters as heroes, even if they died in battle, which he did portraying Davy Crockett in "The Alamo" (1960).
I thank God I cannot remember the less than a handful of negative Iraq war/war on terror themed movies that have been released over the past ten years. Like last year’s anti-Iraq war best picture winner, "The Hurt Locker" (2008), none of those films did any box office business. The reason was because of their negative portrait of America and our armed forces. Sure, I was happy when Kathryn Bigelow won the best director Oscar last year. When I heard her dedicate her win to the men and women serving overseas, however, I found it a little hypocritical since "The Hurt Locker" is anything but positive when it comes to the Iraq war. I just don’t believe one can say they are for the nation’s military and then bash the mission they have been sent to carry out.
That’s what makes Battle: Los Angeles such a refreshingly welcome change. No, it’s not going to receive any Oscar nominations but it’s certainly not bad enough to receive any Razzies either. With the exception of Eckhart’s Nance, most of the characters lack so much depth that when some of the military servicemen do go down in the line of fire, we don’t know them well enough to care while the jerky camera movements look as though half the film was shot using a hand held device like in "The Blair Witch Project" (1999).The focus here, though, is not so much about the aliens plundering Mother Earth of its precious resources and wiping out civilization. It’s about our nation’s military marching in to do a job no one else has the guts to do. In "Battle: Los Angeles," the United States Marines do it without question. There is no political grandstanding. It would be no more different than if this country came under attack by foreign invaders.
I don’t know what director Jonathn Liebesman and screenwriter Christopher Bertolini’s intentions were when they made "Battle: Los Angeles" but the film offers two things: American patriotism and respect for our nation’s military, something sorely lacking in a lot of today’s liberal America bashing movies.
©3/15/11
No comments:
Post a Comment