Archive for alien invasion

BATTLESHIP (2012)

Posted in 2012, Aliens, Based on a Board Game, Cinema Knife Fights, Outer Space with tags , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: BATTLESHIP (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A beach. On the ocean in the distance, a massive battleship is battling an even more massive alien spaceship. On the beach, MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES sit across from each other on beach chairs, with a table between them, playing the board game BATTLESHIP. They seem oblivious to the commotion on the sea behind them.)

MA:  A-1.

LS:  Steak Sauce!

MA:  This isn’t a quiz!  A-1.

LS:  Miss.

MA:  Miss?  Where the hell are your ships?  I haven’t hit one yet!  Are you cheating?

LS:  I never cheat!  You’re just not very good at this game.

MA: What’s to be good at?  You just call out letters and numbers, and eventually you’ll hit some ships.

LS:  That’s why you’re losing. You don’t have any strategy.

MA:  Really?  What’s your strategy?

LS:  I hide my ships well.

MA:  Yeah, like off the board!  (There is a massive explosion on the ocean, and for a moment MA & LS turn their attention to the sea battle.)

LS:  Those guys are still going at it.

MA: It gets boring after a while, doesn’t it?  Kinda like this week’s movie.

LS:  I take it you didn’t like it?

MA:  No.

LS:  Care to tell us about it?

MA:  Not really, but since I’m losing this game, anyway, I might as well.

Today we’re reviewing BATTLESHIP (2012), the new movie based on the Hasbro game BATTLESHIP. There’s been a lot of joking about this one for months now, since its plot—a story about the navy battling aliens from outer space—has nothing to do with the board game.

LS:  As you folks can see, there are just battleships on this board. No space ships.

MA:  Not yet anyway. I kept thinking during the movie that the marketing department will come out with a new version of the game which will include alien spaceships.

LS:  That’s not so far-fetched. If this movie is a hit, I bet that new version of the game will be coming out next week!

MA: All joking aside, I had hoped that this one wouldn’t be bad. After all, it’s about battleships battling alien space ships. How bad can it be?  Very bad, as it turns out. But I’ll get to that in a moment, maybe even in half a moment, since the plot synopsis isn’t going to take long.

BATTLESHIP is about Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), a young man with no direction, unlike his older brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard) who is very responsible and in the Navy and looks out for his younger brother. When Alex tries to impress a sexy woman at a bar, in a comedic sequence that is embarrassingly awkward and out of place, he ends up afoul of the law and hits rock bottom. Stone put his foot down and tells Alex—in order to pull his life together—he has to join the Navy.

LS (shouting): Chicken Burrito!

MA: That’s not funny.

LS: I dunno, I saw Liam Neeson crack a smile at it in this movie.

MA: AAARGH!

(Suddenly, a loud Disco beat can be heard getting louder, and someone is chanting “The Navy, The Navy, The Navy.” Suddenly, the VILLAGE PEOPLE appear on the beach, in costume and dancing around on the sand)

VILLAGE PEOPLE: IN THE NAVY!

YES, YOU CAN SAIL THE SEVEN SEAS!

IN THE NAVY!

MA: No, no, no! Reviewing this movie is bad enough. I will not be subjected to disco music as well!

LS: I kinda like it.

MA: Go away! Now! All of you!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE look dejected as they stop singing and dancing and walk away)

LS: Spoil sport.

MA: We have a review to do. We don’t have time for that stuff. Anyway, where was I?

Of course, it turns out that the woman in the bar, Samantha Shane (Brooklyn Decker) is the daughter of Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson)… who is, of course, a big wig in The Navy…

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE come back, singing and dancing)

VILLAGE PEOPLE: IN THE NAVY!

YES, YOU CAN PUT YOUR MIND AT EASE!

IN THE NAVY!

MA: No, no! Go away! Go away!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE skulk off)

MA:   Samantha, of course, immediately falls madly in love with Alex—why?  I don’t know—and they want to get married, but first he has to ask permission from her father, the hard-assed Admiral. Again, we have to suffer through some awkward cliché comedic moments.

Meanwhile, scientists have built a communication network to communicate with other earth-like planets in the universe. Suddenly, the signal is answered as NASA tracks a group of ships descending towards Earth. These ships get here in a few minutes. They must have some pretty fast ships!

As you already know, ships land, aliens emerge with more fighting machines, and it’s up to the Navy to protect the Earth. More specifically, it’s up to Lieutenant Alex Hopper to prove that he really is a good officer, because it’s his ship that has to battle it out with the aliens, and it’s Alex who suddenly finds himself in command. Well, that’s believable!

Unfortunately, the good Admiral Shane and the rest of the Navy are blocked from the action by a gigantic wall of energy that prevents them from getting through to the battle, which means Liam Neeson disappears for the bulk of this movie.

LS: Lucky for him! I bet that was in his contract! “I’ll appear in this huge piece of dog crap if you give me lots of money and I get to disappear for most of the movie!”

MA: Not only does Alex get to save the world, but he has to worry about his girlfriend, because Samantha is also in harm’s way, in another dull clichéd storyline that I won’t even get into here.

LS: Yeah, it is pretty dull. I didn’t care about her storyline at all. But I guess I did kind of like Gregory D. Gadson as Lieutenant Colonel Mick Canales, who appears in her part of the movie. Gadson was a real-life soldier and a double amputee. His role isn’t very well written and he’s not a great actor, but the man does have charisma on a movie screen. I just wish they’d done something more interesting with him

MA: So, how does it all end?  Let’s put it this way: “Aliens from outer space, we hardly knew ye!”

There is so much wrong with this movie, I don’t know where to start. I hated this movie. I was bored within the first ten minutes, and this is a two hour and ten minute movie. It was a long night at the theater.

By far, the worst part is the writing. It’s so obvious that the screenplay by Erich Hoeber and Jon Hoeber was thrown together for the sole purpose of marketing a movie based on the game BATTLESHIP. It’s not like they had a real story to tell and set out to tell it. They had a script to write based on a game. There’s a HUGE difference. There’s nothing stimulating or moving about this story. It doesn’t connect at any level. It’s an insult to our intelligence as moviegoers.

This movie is so full of clichés it’s nauseating. The loser hero who must make good, who has to prove to his potential father–in-law that he’s good enough for his daughter, who has to set aside all his doubts and prove that he can lead. There’s more, but why go on?

I didn’t like any of the characters. The performances for the most part are fine, but everyone’s stuck in this dreadful story, and so none of the players come close to saving this one. The only guy who could have saved this movie is Liam Neeson, but his character is off-screen for the bulk of the action. Had this film pitted Neeson’s Admiral against the aliens, I’m sure I would have liked it better. It would have at least given me a character to root for.

LS: I agree. Neeson as the movie’s hero would have probably improved things a lot.

MA: Taylor Kitsch plays Alex Hopper. Kitsch, as you might remember, played John Carter in JOHN CARTER (2012). I didn’t like him in that movie much, and I didn’t really like him here, either. A big part of the problem is Kitsch comes off as so laid back, as if he should be carrying a surfboard on a beach like this. I didn’t really buy him as a Navy officer.

LS: See, this is where I start to disagree with you. I like Kitsch a lot. He’s no Liam Neeson—-.

MA:  I’ll say!  He’s more like Ashton Kutcher.  Ugh!

LS:  NO FRIGGIN WAY!  Aside from one awful performance in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009), where he adopted a horrendous Cajun accent to play Remy LeBeau (aka Gambit), in a role he was completely miscast for, I’m actually a big fan of Kitsch. I was a big fan of his long-running TV show, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHT (2006 – 2011), where he played high school football star Tim Riggins. And I still say that JOHN CARTER was one of the best movies of this year so far. I was really bummed out when Disney proclaimed the movie a flop and even fired a few executives who had greenlit it. I think the movie is terrific and I bet it goes on to become a full-fledged cult movie.

In BATTLESHIP, however, I just felt sorry for him. The guy has charisma, and can actually carry a movie, but this is a completely thankless role. I just hope that if TRANSFORMERS—er, I mean, BATTLESHIP—is a flop, Kitsch won’t get part of the blame again, because he does the best he can with a completely horrible script.

MA:   I dunno.  I didn’t like JOHN CARTER all that much, and I certainly didn’t like BATTLESHIP, so as far as I’m concerned, in recent movies, the guy’s 0 for 2.

LS:  What do you know?  I really hope he gets a chance to redeem himself in the upcoming Oliver Stone movie, SAVAGES.

MA: Okay, that one looks good, so maybe he’ll win me over yet.

Brooklyn Decker is beautiful as Samantha Shane, and she’s okay for the most part, but again, she’s stuck in a role that we’ve seen countless times before. The rest of the cast is the same. No one is able to lift this movie to a better place.

LS: That’s true. I actually liked a lot of people in this cast, but nobody could have saved this flounder. By the way, Brooklyn Decker was okay, but I wasn’t sure what the fuss was all about. She’s a model-turned-actress, and she’s not horrible here. And she is pretty. But she’s no Megan Fox!

MA: She’s pretty close.

LS:  Not really.

MA:  Yeah, I thought she was pretty hot.

LS: She’s hot, but she’s no Megan Fox. And I didn’t care all that much for her character. I was much more interested in singer Rihanna as Petty Officer Cora “Weps” Raikes. She was one tough cookie, and she fought right alongside the men. Sure, she her role was a complete cliché, just like every other role here, but the lady has more charisma onscreen than Decker.

MA:  Nah!  She kinda annoyed me.  I thought she was a Michelle Rodriguez wannabe.

LS:  Hey, I like Michelle Rodriguez, too!

I also liked Alexander Skarsgard as Alex’s older brother, Stone Hopper. Actually, “liked” is the wrong word, since I don’t think his character amounted to much, either. More like it was cool to see Skarsgard in this movie, even if he was just filling space. Fans of the HBO series TRUE BLOOD will recognize Skarsgard as the vampire Eric Northman. He is one of the best things on TRUE BLOOD, but his movie career hasn’t been too impressive so far. Roles in that awful remake of STRAW DOGS (2011) and this pile of dog crap don’t help. But it’s still good to see him. Someone give this man a decent movie role already!

Fans of Taylor Kitsch’s TV show, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, will also be happy to see Kitsch reunited with another actor from that show, Jesse Plemmons, who played Landry Clarke on FNL. Here he plays “Boatswain Mate Seaman Jimmy “Ordy” Ord.” Who the hell came up with these names?? Plemmons is good at playing comic relief-type characters, and he does what he can here with, once again, an underwritten character. There sure are a lot of those in this movie!

MA: Director Peter Berg includes lots of CGI battle scenes, but why was I bored throughout?  Because I’ve seen scenes like this a hundred times before—take your pick, from WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) to BATTLE L.A. (2011).

LS: I actually like Peter Berg, too. He started out as an actor on the TV series CHICAGO HOPE (1995 – 1999), and then went on to direct the funny but flawed VERY BAD THINGS (1998). Since then, he’s directed more high-profile movies like FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS (2004) —he was also the Executive Producer of the TV series version, see a pattern here? —THE KINGDOM (2007) and HANCOCK (2008). Needless to say, not everything he’s done has been great, but I like him, and I think this movie was a waste of his talents.

But you’re right; BATTLESHIP is an awful lot like BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. There’s nothing new here at all.

MA: Yep, BATTLESHIP offers nothing new.

This one plays like a Roland Emmerich movie, but worse!  His stories are actually better! What this movie really reminded me of was the dreadful G.I. JOE: RISE OF THE COBRA (2009) movie, another film based on a toy. That was another movie with tons of action and adventure, with a plot thrown in as an afterthought. Please, stop making movies based on games and toys!!  They’re horrible!  Unless, of course, you actually have a decent story to tell.

And how about those aliens?  We know nothing about them. They’ve come here to invade, obviously. I guess so, anyway. They just land and start shooting at us. But maybe they’re not invading. Maybe they just want us to stop playing our music so loud. Or perhaps they worship chickens on their planet and are horrified at the way we treat the fowls. I don’t know, because the movie doesn’t tell us!!  Even the alien ships are disappointing, as they look like TRANSFORMERS.

LS: This isn’t TRANSFORMERS, it’s BATTLESHIP!

MA: I know that. I was making a comparison.

LS: Oh…I don’t know. I didn’t think the aliens in BATTLESHIP were all that amazing, but I didn’t completely hate them, either. With their weird, oversized hands and human-like faces, I thought they were at least interesting to look at.

MA:  For about ten seconds, yeah, but as soon as it became apparent that they weren’t actually going to do anything, I lost interest.

LS:  But the ships, yeah. These aliens definitely went to their local TRANSFORMERS dealership.

MA: BATTLESHIP is so fake, phony, forced and contrived, it’s painful. It also has a cookie-cutter ending that will amaze you in its simplicity. If we can dispose of bad-ass aliens this easily, no one’s ever going to invade us again!

LS: Yep, I have to agree. The ending is sappy as hell and completely lame.

MA: BATTLESHIP is a horrible movie. Stay away from this one so the powers that be will get the hint that turning board games into movies is a bad idea.

I give it 0 knives.

LS: Wow, you really hated this one. I can’t say I blame you. It’s dumb, the script is awful, there are big chunks that are boring, the CGI seems like a retread of TRANSFORMERS, and the entire concept of a movie based on a board game is kind of insulting to people plunking down ten bucks for a movie ticket.

But I didn’t hate it as much as you did. Mainly, because there were a few people in the cast who I liked, who kept me from nodding off completely. And I still say Taylor Kitsch has a lot of potential to become a big movie star. He’s just had awful luck so far. JOHN CARTER was a great movie that got a bad rap. And BATTLESHIP is just plain bad.

For the cast alone, I’ve got to give this one ~ one and a half knives.

But that’s not to say I like this movie at all, or that I’m recommending that anyone go see it. If you want to see this thing, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it. Like Michael said, we do not want to encourage Hollywood to keep making bad movies based on board games! Hasbro, go back to the toy store!

You know what really makes me angry? I reviewed the trailer for this movie back in August 2011 in my TRASHING TRAILERS column, and even back then I could see it was a complete dog. I’m angry that I had to actually sit through this movie. I could have reviewed it based on the trailer alone and saved myself ten bucks and over 2 hours of my life!

MA: There you have it, folks. It looks like this BATTLESHIP is dead in the water.

LS: You know my other big problem with this movie? When I saw it, there was a commercial for The Navy beforehand, and I swear, there were times in BATTLESHIP when I couldn’t tell the difference. I thought I was watching the commercial all over again. And I’m sorry, THAT’S NOT ENTERTAINMENT!

MA:  You’re right.  This movie was a lot like a bad commercial, one that unfortunately lasted 2 hours and 10 minutes!  (LS and MA both groan really loud)

(VOICE from off-screen shouts)

VOICE: What did you say it was a commercial for?

LS: The Navy!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE suddenly reappear on the beach, singing and dancing to a loud disco beat)

MA: Oh my God, not this again!! I’m getting out of here.

LS: Suit yourself. (He gets up and dances along with them)

THE END

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives BATTLESHIP~ ZERO knives!

LL Soares gives BATTLESHIP ~ ONE AND A HALF knives!

Leave A Comment »

THE DARKEST HOUR (2011)

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Aliens, LL Soares Reviews, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , on December 28, 2011 by knifefighter

THE DARKEST HOUR (2011)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

In a year that has given us a lot of alien invasion movies (SKYLINE and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES come most quickly to mind), THE DARKEST HOUR doesn’t have a lot of new things to say about the topic. Sure, this time, the aliens are invisible and emit electricity. They also disintegrate people into bursting clouds of ash (a cool effect that loses its charm after the third or fourth time.) But otherwise, it’s kind of a business as usual.

At least we get an interesting location this time around. Two wannabe dot.com millionaires—reckless Sean (Emile Hersch, the biggest name star here, best known for movies like 2007’s INTO THE WILD and the 2008 biopic, MILK) and uptight Ben (Max Minghella) —take a plane to Moscow to unveil their latest GPS/Facebook clone/whatever software to the Russians, and end up getting cut out the equation when the Russian company they were supposed to do business with just creates their own knock-off of the software and sends them packing. While drinking in a trendy Russian bar, the guys meet two American girls they found using their software named Natalie (Olivia Thirlby) and Anne (Rachael Taylor, with an Aussie accent). While celebrating their failure, something goes wrong and the lights go out, plunging the club into darkness.

Everyone goes outside, to see hundreds of weird colored lights falling from the sky. They look pretty, and harmless enough, until one of them turns a curious cop into a pile of dust. After that, everyone is running for their lives to get away from the pretty lights that are really horrible monsters bent on taking the earth over for their own evil purposes (It turns out they want our energy supplies, of course.)

After staying in the club basement for a couple of days, the foursome (now with the addition of Joel Kinnaman as Skyler, the sleazy guy who ripped the guys off in the first place), finally decide to poke their heads out and see what happened to the world. It’s not very cheerful. They may be some of the last people alive on the planet, and go about trying to first, find their way to the American Embassy, and secondly, try to find any other survivors of the horrific invasion.

At one point they stumble upon a slightly crazy inventor named Sergei (Dato Bakhtadze), who may just have found the aliens’ weakness, and his companion, a teenage girl named Vika (Veronika Ozerova). And there are even some cool Russian survivalist types with lots of neat weapons!

While THE DARKEST HOUR isn’t a horrible movie, it’s not exactly going to hold you spellbound either. Directed by Chris Gorak (most of his previous movie credits are as an art director and he only directed one film before this one), the story is serviceable enough, but nothing great. And the acting is good enough for this sort of thing. But if you’re looking for a riveting aliens vs. humans movie, there are lots of better films you can seek out.

On top of that, this one is in 3D, which means you have pay an extra five bucks for those thick, black-framed glasses when you get your ticket. As usual for these kinds of movies, the 3D effects aren’t all that good (only a couple of scenes had any real depth to them, and one scene, where the dust of a disintegrated human fills the air, makes you wonder why they didn’t do this effect in 3D more often), and definitely aren’t worth the extra money, which means that not only do you get to sit through a mediocre science fiction film, but you get to pay more than a regular ticket price for bad 3D. What fun!

Released this past weekend on Christmas Day (don’t ask me why – I don’t have a clue), THE DARKEST HOUR comes barreling at us like a locomotive that is….running on fumes.

You would be better off letting this one go by and waiting for the next train.

© Copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Aliens, Cinema Knife Fights, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on March 14, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


(The Scene: A busy city street. Hordes of people are clamoring to get away as they are shot at by aliens in armor and drone spaceships zoom overhead. L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are walking down the middle of the street. LS is holding a large umbrella that covers them both, as he smokes a fat cigar.)

MA: Why are all these people running around? You’d think aliens were invading the Earth or something.

LS: That’s exactly what’s happening.

MA: Really? Those drone things are aliens? I thought we were walking by a STAR WARS convention or something.

LS: Yep, the days of scary aliens in the movies seem to be long gone.

(Three-eyed MARTIAN from 1953 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS approaches and stops to speak with MA & LS.)

MARTIAN (complaining): Back in the day, all I had to do was put my hand on a woman’s shoulder, and audiences screamed! These aliens today— (shakes his head and walks away in disgust.)

(A building behind them explodes.)

MA: Scary aliens or not, we probably should take cover.

LS: Nah. They can’t touch us as long as we’re reviewing the movie. It’s in our contract.

MA: Nice to know. Would you like to start this one?

LS: My pleasure (plucks cigar from his mouth). Our movie this week is BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. Yet another in a long line of recent alien invasion films. This is one of the more interesting ones I’ve seen lately. I think that’s because it is not filmed like a science fiction movie. It’s filmed like a war movie.

MA: I thought it was too much like a war movie. I wanted more menacing aliens and fewer army shoot-outs.

LS: Meteors have fallen from the sky without warning. Why didn’t anyone see this coming? Did they come through some kind of wormhole?

MA: NASA scientists were too busy watching Charlie Sheen interviews.

LS: And that’s not all. They are coming in clusters, and each cluster lands in the water just outside of a major city. Coincidence? Nope. Not long afterwards, aliens in metal suits start emerging from the water, shooting everyone they see. It’s not a meteor shower – it’s an invasion!

When BATTLE: LOS ANGELES first opens, we’re in a helicopter hovering over Santa Monica, wherein Marines are preparing themselves for conflict, including Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart). Suddenly, we go back in time to the events before the meteors showed up, getting a glimpse at various Marines and their lives before the crisis.

MA: Quick! Take cover! Here comes the dreaded flashback again! I was so excited when this one started too, because the action was immediate—what a great place to start the story! But then we go back in time to and have to wait for all the excitement to happen all over again.

Sure, in this movie the wait’s not all that long, so in this case it’s not so bad, but I really don’t like this present day usage of flashbacks, where the movie begins with an exciting scene and then immediately jumps backwards in time. It’s just a lame way to start the movie off with something compelling. It’s a cheat.

How’s this for a concept: start the movie off with an exciting scene that actually belongs at the beginning of the movie! Last year’s PREDATORS did this with great success.

LS: They’re not completely alike, but there are an awful lot of similarities between this movie and SKYLINE, which we reviewed last November. That one also opened in the middle of an alien invasion and then jumped back in time to the characters’ lives before the attack.

MA: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is a fine companion piece to SKYLINE since they’re basically telling the exact same story, only from different perspectives: SKYLINE from the perspective of civilians trapped in an apartment, and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES from the perspective of Marines going into harm’s way to rescue civilians. BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is the much better movie of the two.

LS: And that’s not a coincidence. SKYLINE was directed by Colin and Greg Strause, who also happened to be in charge of the visual effects for BATTLE: LOS ANGELES.

But where SKYLINE focused on a handful of civilians and their actions in the face of an alien invasion, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES focuses on the soldiers who fight the battle. This is part of what makes it so interesting….when it’s not being boring that is.

I found the opening half hour where we look in on several soldiers’ lives completely tedious. I know these scenes were meant to make us care about these characters, but it didn’t work for me. I didn’t care about any of them. In fact, I found a lot of the movie to be a bore, except for the scenes of actual combat. Fortunately, there are enough of these scenes to save the movie from being a snooze.

MA: I almost agree with you about the opening half hour. While I found these soldiers somewhat interesting, though certainly not memorable, I didn’t find these scenes to be tedious. It actually seemed to go by really fast. I enjoyed the pacing of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. I thought the whole movie went by quickly.

LS: Lucky you. I thought the beginning was painfully slow. Once Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) and his platoon enter Santa Monica to evacuate civilians trapped in a police station, the movie finally picks up speed and gets interesting as they enter the war zone.

Technically, Lieutenant William Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) is in charge, but he’s fresh out of officer’s school and he’s never been in a combat situation before. So it’s clear he has no idea what he’s doing, and he relies on Nantz to clue him in.

MA: How many times have we seen this scenario? For once, can we have a story about the best battle-tested military leader going up against the best battle-tested alien leader?

As soon as we meet the green Martinez, we know somewhere along the line he’s going to screw up, and Nantz will take over. Ho hum.

LS: Yeah, the emphasis on the war aspects means that instead of getting a ton of sci-fi clichés (although we do get some of those, too), we get a ton of war movie clichés.

There’s a whole drama about Nantz, too, concerning his last mission in the Middle East, where he came back but the rest of his platoon got killed. This breeds resentment among the men – they think he abandoned his men to save his own neck—especially Corporal Jason Lockett (Corey Hardrict) —whose brother was one of the guys who died over there. Frankly, I found this subplot pretty boring, especially since Eckhart’s Sgt. Nantz was the only compelling character in the whole movie. Hard to resent the guy who is the only interesting one we’re watching.

MA: And that’s why I didn’t mind this subplot, because Eckhart’s Nantz is so compelling, and I liked him a lot, so I wanted this issue to be resolved. I wanted to find out more about what happened, so I didn’t mind this plot point.

LS: I found just about every other character to be one-dimensional and bland. That even includes good actors like Michelle Rodriguez, as Sgt. Elena Santos, and Bridget Moynahan as a veterinarian named Michele.

MA: I’m with you about the rest of the bland cast except for Michelle Rodriguez. I actually enjoyed her more in this movie than I did in MACHETE (2010) or AVATAR (2009).

Even though she’s playing yet another tough character, she was more vulnerable here, and I thought this was a nice change of pace for her. She’s playing a Tech Sergeant, and so she’s not Mrs. Rambo here, yet she’s no geek either. She’s certainly a tough soldier and more than holds her own in the battle scenes, but just this slight difference was enough to make me notice. I really enjoyed her performance.

LS: I like Rodriguez a lot, but I didn’t think she had a chance to flesh out Sgt. Santos much. We’ve seen her in this kind of role before—hell, she’s good at it—but she isn’t onscreen enough to develop her as a character.

MA: This was certainly a case where the two main stars- Eckhart and Rodriguez- outclassed the rest of the cast.

(There is the constant rat-a-tat of gunfire in the background. People continue to flee)

LS: Another negative about the movie is the aliens. I didn’t find them all that great, either. They were better than the really fake-looking CGI aliens in SKYLINE, but they weren’t much better. The soldier aliens just looked like robots, or freaky aliens in metal suits. Most of them looked sort of like elongated humans, and there were others that looked like they walked on spider legs. Neither kind was especially scary. Some of their machines were kind of interesting, including a kind of organic machine gun at one point, and the drone ships zooming overhead. But none of the alien creatures or their weaponry was all that awe-inspiring. Not even when they captured a dying alien and continually stabbed it in various organs, trying to find out how to kill them. That one just looked like a blobby mess inside a metal suit. There’s nothing in this movie that really makes you think, “Wow! That’s cool.”

MA: I agree. I didn’t like the aliens all that much either, and you’re right about that captured dying alien scene. I still can’t believe that scene wasn’t disturbing. They’re ripping the thing open, punching it, stabbing it, basically tearing the thing to shreds while it’s still alive trying to find out how to kill it, and the scene plays out like a bunch of people ripping into a plate of nachos! It’s that harmless! Pass the sour cream!

LS: That scene made me hungry.

MA: Conspicuously missing from this scene is any indication that the alien feels pain. Add a few high-pitched squeals and shrieks, and this scene has a completely different feel. As is, these aliens don’t feel pain, I guess.

(They walk past a shattered phone booth. Inside, ET is talking on the phone)

ET: ET phone home. ET phone home. Hello? It’s about time you picked up. GET ME THE HELL OUT OF HERE! A guy could get hurt down here.

MA (looking at ET in the phone booth): Talk about passé!

LS: Yeah, ET should have gotten his butt off this planet years ago!

MA: I was talking about the phone booth.

The look of the aliens was indeed disappointing, mostly because we never get a really good look at them. They look like your standard generic CGI battle droids on loan from George Lucas.

LS: Yeah, lines of armored aliens that pretty much looked exactly the same (a couple of those spider-leg ones were tossed in occasionally for variety). Lines of clones surging forward equal typical boring CGI effects.

MA: I didn’t find the ships impressive either. DISTRICT 9 (2009) did a better job in this department. I did like that organic machine gun, but if that’s the best this movie could do, then that’s not saying much. Go see BATTLE: LOS ANGELES! It’s got this great organic machine gun!

And you’re right; the aliens aren’t scary at all.

Luckily, in spite of the lack of decent aliens, the movie does work and is entertaining.

LS: Like I said, I have mixed feelings about this one. I didn’t care about most of the characters, and the aliens weren’t especially interesting. But the battle scenes were okay. They were chaotic, riveting, and you never knew when someone was going to die. The battle scenes played like B-movie versions of battle scenes from Steven Spielberg’s SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998), but nowhere near as good or intense. (After all, RYAN took place during a real war and Spielberg has a bit more talent than Jonathan Liebesman.)

MA: Well, at least it got the water part right, which is one of your favorite reasons to slam SIGNS (2002).

LS: SIGNS? How dare you mention that movie in this review!

MA: Even though I liked SIGNS, you and everyone else were right to criticize the fact that the aliens in that movie were stupid because they invaded a planet full of water when their one mortal weakness was water. Here, the aliens need and use water, and so they’ve come to the right place. In fact, it’s speculated in the movie that it’s the reason they’re invading, to steal the water.

LS: Why not just ask us to share it?

MA: For the most part, I liked BATTLE: LOS ANGELES because it was chock full of compelling action scenes featuring exciting shoot-outs between Marines and aliens. I didn’t love it, however, because it never really goes beyond this point.

Like SKYLINE before it, it fails to capture the large scale cinematic overview of an alien invasion from outer space. It’s hard to believe that the old WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953) movie did a better job at capturing the horror of an alien invasion than these recent movies.

LS: Even the remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) with Tom Cruise was better than a lot of these recent alien invasion movies.

MA: Both BATTLE: LOS ANGELES and SKYLINE suffer from the same problem- they’re claustrophobic. They never move beyond their tiny little microcosm of characters. The world is being invaded in both movies, but we never see it.

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is a much better movie than SKYLINE, because it’s got better acting, better special effects, and frankly a more interesting story. I’d rather watch a platoon of Marines battle aliens than a bunch of boring people holed up in apartment defending themselves with handguns and kitchen knives.

LS:  Since there is a link, it would have been more interesting if SKYLINE and BATTLE: LOS ANGELES happened at the same time, against the same aliens. If they’d invested the same big budget in SKYLINE and made it a legitimate sequel, it would have been a better movie.

(Another building blows up. We see YODA stumbling away from the debris, trying to run faster)

YODA: Getting my ass out of here, I am.

MA: (waves to Yoda) Director Jonathan Liebesman does a serviceable job at the helm. The frequent battle scenes are tight, action-packed, and riveting, but the film never reaches that next level of cinematic flare. There is nothing visually memorable in this movie, which in a movie about aliens invading from outer space, is a disappointment.

Christopher Bertolini’s screenplay gives us one interesting character, Eckhart’s Nantz, and decent dialogue, but that’s not the reason to see BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, nor is it the main reason the film is flawed.

The movie is full of battle scenes. Even just making one or two of those scenes memorable would have lifted this movie to a higher level. The fact that the filmmakers didn’t do this is my biggest beef with this movie.

LS: I thought the battle near the gas station, where Nantz improvises a trap for the aliens, was pretty memorable.

MA: Yeah, that was a pretty good scene, but visually it didn’t wow me.

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES is entertaining, exciting, and has enough bullets, explosions, and testosterone on hand to make Sylvester Stallone proud, but it lacks vision, it’s not spectacular, and there’s no sense of cinematic visuals which would have made this one really memorable. It would play just as well on television as at the movies.

LS: I’d say the main reasons to see this one are the battle scenes and Aaron Eckhart, who is an A-List leading man trapped in a B-movie here. But since it was such a mixed bag, I give BATTLE: LOS ANGELES two and a half  knives. It’s good, but not great. You might want to wait for Netflix, or go see a matinee.

(CHARLIE SHEEN pops up from behind some debris, waving a machete)

SHEEN: Did someone say Two and a Half Men?

LS: Knives! I said knives!

SHEEN: Sorry. Must have been that tiger’s blood ringing in my ears.

MA: I liked it slightly better than you. Even though I had trouble with the fact that it was only a Marines vs. aliens story, the battle scenes worked for me, enough so that I enjoyed the movie. I give it three knives.

Well, that about wraps things up.

LS: And perfect timing too, because we’ve reached our destination.

MA: We have? Where are we?

LS: Area 51.

MA: The alien place? What are we doing here?

LS: Reviewing our next movie, PAUL (2011) of course.

MA: Wow. The week went by fast!

LS: Don’t worry. We’re going to have a flashback now so we can relive the week all over again.

(MA groans.)

LS: But tune in next week folks for our next review. More aliens are on the way.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


Michael Arruda gives BATTLE: LOS ANGELES – three knives

L.L. Soares gives BATTLE: LOS ANGELES – two and a half knives

1 Comment »

CKF Coming Attractions: March 2011!

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Coming Attractions, Werewolf Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT
COMING ATTRACTIONS: March 2011
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: The streets of Los Angeles. Pandemonium is everywhere. People are running through the streets. Military vehicles and soldiers are firing into the sky, and giant alien spaceships are returning the favor. The camera pans to the window of a coffee shop, and through the window we go inside, with the camera settling on MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES at a table drinking coffee.)

MA (looking out window):  Yep, it looks like yet another alien invasion. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of this storyline. We just had SKYLINE (2010) and MONSTERS (2010) last year.

LS:  Those are just two movies. How can you be tired of a storyline after two movies?

MA:  I guess because I didn’t like either movie.

LS:  That’s because you have no taste. MONSTERS was one of the better movies of 2010.

MA:  Anyway, before we get to this latest invasion, from BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, which opens March 11, we have to cover a couple of other movies. The first is THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) which opens on March 4.

THE ADUSTMENT BUREAU is a thriller starring Matt Damon about a secret group of men in suits who control our destiny, and it involves a love affair between a politician and a ballerina. In short, this one sounds plain stupid, and I don’t have high hopes for it.

(Outside the window, a politician and a ballerina run by, pursued by a group of men in suits, in fast motion.)

MA:  That’s what I’m talking about.

Anyway, I like Matt Damon a lot, but I’m not sure if his presence alone will be able to save what looks to be a troubled production. Rumor has it that this one has gone through multiple rewrites and delayed release dates.

It’s written and directed by George Nolfi, who wrote THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007) and the Michael Douglas thriller THE SENTINEL (2006), which a lot of people didn’t like, but I thought it was pretty good. THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU is based on a Philip K. Dick short story called “Adjustment Team” so it does have this in its favor.

LS:  I’m a big Philip K. Dick fan. Some good movies have been based on his work, especially BLADE RUNNER (1982). But there have been bad movies adapted from his stories as well. THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU looks pretty boring to me. And I’m not a big Matt Damon fan.

MA:  Okay, moving on to what promises to be perhaps the biggest release of March, BATTLE:  LOS ANGELES (2011). This one’s got a very stylish trailer, and it’s about yet another battle between humans and aliens. I generally like this storyline, but I’m getting tired of it. I certainly hope this one delivers the goods.

It does have a good cast, which includes Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, and Bridget Moynahan. This is one that I certainly WANT to like, but a lot will depend on how well the story is written. I’m sure it’ll look great with smooth special effects, but whether a film makes that jump to the next level often depends on the strength of its story.

LS:  You’re right, though, that it looks an awful lot like another movie we saw recently, SKYLINE. If we judge the movie on its trailer, BATTLE LOS ANGELES looks very similar. I hope that’s not the case. I hope it gives us something different.

MA:  Also coming out on March 11 is RED RIDING HOOD (2011). I had absolutely no interest in this one. I mean, who wants to see a movie about Little Red Riding Hood?

(Three little pigs run by the coffee shop window, pursued by a big, bad wolf.)

MA:  I guess it could be worse.

Anyway, I wasn’t into seeing this one at all, until that is I saw its trailer, which I have to admit has piqued my interest, and has me actually looking forward to seeing this one now. The movie looks pretty cool. It’s got some impressive photography and makes great use of the color red, at least in the trailer, anyway.

Amanda Seyfried who I like a lot is playing the lead role, Valerie, aka Red Riding Hood. We saw her in CHLOE (2009) and JENNIFER’S BODY (2009). And Gary Oldman is on hand as Father Solomon, and he looks to be a nasty werewolf hunter.

In spite of the fact that the movie is named RED RIDING HOOD, it looks like an atmospheric werewolf movie, one that I’m looking forward to seeing. I guess this really shouldn’t come as a surprise, since LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD, the fairy tale, really is a werewolf story, too.

It’s written by David Johnson, who also wrote the screenplay for ORPHAN (2009), a movie I liked a lot. The only knock on this one is it’s directed by Catherine Hardwicke. What’s the knock?  Well, she directed TWILIGHT (2008).

(Bella and Edward run by the window. LS & MA break window and start hurling donuts at the fleeing couple.)

LS:  The trailer looks interesting, but it also looks like the werewolf is a teenager. It looks like yet another variation on the TWILIGHT concept. So I’m not that interested. Even though I do like Seyfried and Oldman.

On March 18 we’ll be reviewing PAUL (2011). At first, I thought it was the new movie by Edgar Wright, who gave us SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) and HOT FUZZ (2007). But Wright is nowhere around. It’s directed by Greg Motolla, who also directed SUPERBAD (2007). But the stars, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, were also the stars of SHAUN and FUZZ.

PAUL is a movie about a couple of idiots who pick up an alien named Paul, who has escaped from the legendary Area 51. The character of Paul is CGI and looks like he could get a bit cutesy as the movie goes on. However, this one is rated R, so maybe it will surprise us and not be as silly as the trailer suggests.

MA:  Yeah, I loved SHAUN OF THE DEAD, and I’m looking forward to PAUL.

That being said, the trailer didn’t blow me away by any means. It didn’t look as funny as I thought it would be. I hope there are funnier jokes in the movie than in the trailer.

LS:  And we’ll finish the month with SUCKER PUNCH (2011) which opens on March 25. This one’s about a girl sent to a sanitarium who escapes into a fantasy world. Except it looks like some of the other patients join her in this world, where they have a quest that will lead them to freedom. SUCKER PUNCH is directed by Zack Snyder, who gave us the so-so remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004), as well as the comic book movies, 300 (2006) and WATCHMEN (2009). He’s made interesting enough films so far that I want to give SUCKER PUNCH a chance, even though the trailer didn’t wow me.

MA:  I’ve got mixed feelings about this one. I mean, the trailer’s pretty good, and the story looks fairly interesting, but if the action scenes don’t hold up, this one could be a disappointment. The story of girls in an institution using an alternate reality as a coping strategy doesn’t do much for me. It seems kinda lame. This one might be a mixed bag.

And yes, the fact that it’s directed by Zack Snyder is a plus.

Well, this about wraps things up here.

LS:  Yes, it does. (to audience):  We’ll see all of you in March at the movies!

(MA & LS pay the bill, then exit restaurant. On the street, they watch the horde of screaming fleeing people run by them. They look at each other, shrug their shoulders, and then join the running and screaming crowd, disappearing into the night.)

—END—

Leave A Comment »

In the Spooklight – WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953)

Posted in 2010, Aliens, Classic Films, In the Spooklight with tags , , , , , , , , on October 20, 2010 by knifefighter

This one’s from waaaay back in October 2001, less than a month after the events of September 11, 2001.  That tragic day was still fresh in my mind when I wrote this column on WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953).  Incidentally, WAR OF THE WORLDS was on my mind this week because I saw a neat collectible of the Martian ship at the ROCK AND SHOCK convention in Worcester, Mass., this past weekend.  I thought about buying it, but when I went back for a second look, it was gone.  Maybe it flew off!

—Michael Arruda, 10/19/20

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953)
by Michael Arruda

Perhaps it’s the association with Orson Welles’ famous Halloween broadcast of 1938.   Or maybe it’s simply because it’s a damn fine scary movie!  Whatever the reason, the 1953 version of H.G. Wells’ THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is perfect Halloween viewing.

Not in the creaky, spooky, things-that-go-bump-in-the-night way.  But in the “in your face,” “there’s-nowhere-to-hide” way!

Martians invade earth.  Their machines pulverize humankind and our assortment of modern-day weapons (the film updates Wells’ story to the 1950s), while withstanding everything we throw at them, including the atom bomb.  Up until the final seconds of the film, and there ain’t nothin stopping these babies!

And it all starts so innocently, in small town America.  A spaceship crashes.  Townsfolk excitedly investigate.  Three deputies keep an eye on the fallen object which the locals believe to be a meteor.  When the deputies realize it is a spaceship, they attempt to show these extraterrestrial visitors that they are friendly.  They are quickly murdered.

Ships begin to fall all over the earth.  It is quickly realized that the Martian intentions are hostile, and that invasion is imminent.  Countries around the world scramble to defend themselves.  Nation after nation succumb to the alien attackers.  The last country left standing is the United States, and after they drop the atom bomb to no avail—the targeted Martian spaceships aren’t even touched!— the fight appears to be over.

In light of the events of September 11 and the subsequent war against terrorism, it is somewhat jarring to watch this film now, while a real war is being waged.  The scenes of buildings being blown up, of Los Angeles being attacked, of mass hysteria, are all the more poignant and disturbing due to current tragic events.

Yet, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is still a classic among genre films, one that is not to be missed.  In vivid Technicolor, it’s a beautiful production.  The Martian ships, with their bright greens and reds, and distinctive sounds, are among the most memorable visuals in the history of horror/sci-fi cinema.  No wonder this film took the Oscar for Best Special Effects that year.

The screenplay by Barre Lyndon gives us three-dimensional characters who we care for, and offers many nice touches.  When leading lady (Ann Robinson) first meets the resident hero scientist (Gene Barry) she doesn’t recognize him because he’s wearing glasses.  He replies that he only uses them for distances.  “When I want to look at something up close, I take them off.”  He promptly removes the glasses and looks right into her eyes.  A nice sexy moment.

Director Byron Haskin handles all the action scenes with ease and provides plenty of chills.  After the atom bomb is dropped, the Martian machines emerge from the dust cloud completely unscathed and unhindered, and they’ve never looked scarier.  And the first time we see an actual Martian— it’s absolutely gruesome!

The final sequence, where Gene Barry and Ann Robinson struggle to reach each other, fighting through the horde of panicked people inside a crowded church, while outside the Martian machines are closing in, destroying everything in their path, is classic cinema.  Amidst the screaming crowd, the two leads finally embrace, just as the church walls begin to crumble around them.  Powerful, emotional stuff.

But the true star of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS isn’t the cast, or the direction or the script, or even the Martians themselves, but those magnificent Martian machines.  They are as much an indelible image in horror cinema as Karloff’s Frankenstein monster.  Once seen, they are not forgotten.

—END—

© Copyright 2001 by Michael Arruda

2 Comments »

WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005)

Posted in 2005, Aliens, Apocalyptic Films, Cinema Knife Fights, Remakes, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on March 19, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are hiding in a dark cellar. Outside, Martian tripod machines are on the move.)

LS (whispering): This month we’re reviewing Steven Spielberg’s movie WAR OF THE WORLDS.

(A loud metallic groan fills the air)

MA: What was that?

LS: I think it was my stomach.

MA (in Jedi garb): I have a bad feeling about this.

LS: WAR OF THE WORLDS is the latest big film version of H.G. Wells’ 1898 book.  As a fan of the 1953 George Pal film version, and not particularly a fan of either Spielberg or star Tom Cruise, I went into this movie with low expectations. However, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it.

While Spielberg takes liberties with Wells’ novel, this is justified because many aspects of the book are so dated now. But the basic story is still there. In this new version, instead of falling to earth like meteorites, the alien war machines were implanted into the earth eons ago, and are suddenly activated after freak lightning storms begin occurring around the world.

Once activated, these huge killing machines rise up from the earth and mercilessly attack the human race. They crush everything in their path with tripod legs and shoot out heat rays that explode humans into dust upon impact.

Tom Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, a dockworker and divorced dad who is just about to start a weekend with his kids, sullen teenager Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and precocious daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning).  When his son takes his classic Mustang for a joyride without asking, Ray goes looking for him, and finds himself a witness to a Martian tripod rising up from beneath the streets.

The rest of the movie is pretty much Cruise and the kids trying to stay one step ahead of the aliens, who are wiping out everything around them.

WAR OF THE WORLDS spills over from science-fiction into horror with the merciless slaughter of humans, and monstrous machines that run on human blood. Spielberg has said that the imagery was affected by the events of 9-11, and this is clear in the scenes of destruction. When Cruise’s character returns home to his kids after witnessing the arrival of the first death machine, he is in shock and covered in dust.

MA:  I’m also a huge fan of the 1953 film, and while I still prefer that version, I really enjoyed this movie. It’s riveting from start to finish.  The only exception, the sequence where Cruise and Fanning seek shelter in the cellar of Tim Robbins’ character I thought was slow.  Creepy, but slow.

LS: I liked that part. We never know what Robbins’ intentions are, but he’s clearly on the verge of madness and Cruise reaches the breaking point worrying if Robbins’ behavior will expose them to the Martians. How Cruise ultimately handles the situation seems extreme, but adds to the sense of desperation caused by the film’s circumstances.

MA: I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan, either, but I liked him a lot here.  Enough to say it’s my favorite Tom Cruise performance.

The special effects were terrific.  The path of destruction carved by the alien machines looks real, rather than something created by a computer.  I think Spielberg deserves a lot of credit for this.

The alien machines themselves, while not immediately as memorable as the machines in the 1953 version, hold their own and are frightening in their own way.

LS: I actually preferred the machines in the new version. The use of sound is quite effective , too. As catchy as the tune the aliens played was in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND , the grinding metal sound of the war machines about to strike in WAR is just as memorable.

MA:  Yes, I agree.  That sound was probably my favorite part of the film!  It’s a really scary effect!

(A weird spider-like alien suddenly leaps into the cellar. LS and MA jump in fright as the creature jumps up and down on an old couch. It has the face of Tom Cruise and keeps chanting over and over, “I’m in love!”)

LS: (hits the creature with a giant flyswatter) Sure, the film has flaws, the way Cruise seems to be always a hair away from death, for example. When the machines first shoot their death rays, killing everyone around him as he flees, Cruise is somehow spared.  It becomes ridiculous after a while.   And the aliens themselves, when we finally see them in the flesh, are a disappointment. The way their insect-like bodies move is interesting, but their faces are downright cutesy.

MA:  Phone home!

LS:  In spite of these flaws, I was so caught up in the story and the plight of the characters that they didn’t matter.

MA:  You know, I also enjoyed Spielberg’s use of the color red.  It generates a feel of tremendous bloodshed.

LS: The red vegetation is actually direct from Wells’ novel and is a very effective visual. Spielberg does have a notorious sappy streak, and while this rears its head towards the end of the film, for the most part, WAR OF THE WORLDS stays true to its apocalyptic vision.

MA:  My biggest problem with the sappy ending is it’s not believable, and whenever you sacrifice believability, it’s not a good thing.

I also thought the end was a bit confusing.  The conclusion could have been explained better.  But these are small matters. I agree with you, WAR OF THE WORLDS is extremely well done and well worth the price of admission.

So, it looks like we agree again.  What’s the world coming to?

(A HUGE metallic blast splits the air)

MA:  That wasn’t your stomach, was it?

LS:  No.

(LS pulls out a machete, while MA lifts an axe.)

MA:  This time we have a common foe.

LS:  To the death!

(LS & MA charge from basement screaming battle cries.  They attack a piñata tripod hanging from a tree and fight viciously for the candy).

—END—

(Originally published in the Hellnotes newsletter on July 28, 2005)

© Copyright 2005 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers