Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Battle: Los Angeles

June 14th 2011 23:27


This is the more expensive aliens-invade-LA film from 2010/2011 (the other being Skyline); a gritty, urban military adventure shot from a grunt's POV. It takes a hackneyed sci-fi concept and heavily leans on Black Hawk Down as source material, and is seemingly also inspired by post-9/11 warfare in Iraq and Afhghanistan to transform familiar American terrain into a wartorn Fallujah City in the space of a few minutes courtesy of some gun-happy aliens. Unlike Skyline, the emphasis here is firmly on realism - a lot of sci-fi aspects (the aliens, their technology, the military's response) are played down and transferred into a modern-warfare framework to keep the film grounded in familiar terms for the viewer. And whilst this idea might make the film more realistic or believable, it unfortunately also makes it rather dull as far as alien invasion films go.

Where do I start? I'll start with what works in Battle: Los Angeles favour. It's very well directed, Jonathan Liebesman puts you right inside the action on the ground level. It's a highly unlikely premise that a war between humans and invading aliens would mostly take place via ground forces engaging in hand-to-hand combat (something acknowledged in films like Independence Day and Skyline) but it at least makes this film a little different from it's contemporaries. The overall experience gives the viewer a good sense of the scale on which this invasion has taken place.

The casting of Aaron Eckhart as the ageing staff sergeant also elevates the material, he demonstrates the difference a decent actor can make to a project like this by avoiding acting cliches and really inhabiting the character's skin.

I also enjoyed the film's subtext regarding a non-traditionalist view of how the military can and should work... in war films the sancrosanct nature of the chain of command is almost an unspoken rules, but here the military characters work more as a team, with two leader figures who work in co-operation. It's an anti-authoritarian model for success, with young inexperienced Lieutenant Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez) representing the official line of command and Staff Sergeant Nantz (Eckhart) offering leadership via his valued experience. The usual cliche is that these two will butt heads throughout the course of the film until they earn the respect of each other or they'll fight it out for a claim to leadership, but the film sidesteps all this to show them working together for the good of everyone.

The army itself is also portrayed as being concerned primarily with the lives of civillians - an interesting point often glossed over in war films due to the fact that American soldiers are trarely shown engaging in combat on their home soil. It's a fairly pro-military idea in that it demonstrates the way the army can be utilised as a force for preserving life, rather than a force that takes it away. Admittedly, it's also an idea that would be hard to get across in films where the enemy is every bit as human as the heroes.

Now, the bad points. The dialogue is cliched and unrealistic at times, with soldiers wisecracking in situations where the pressures of combat should demand less eloquence. Also, the post-9/11 gimmick of putting a battle on this nature on American soil quickly wears thin as the film grows monotonous. I mentioned in my review of Skyline that that film's aliens were often teamed up with bright blue light to 'hide the strings' and build suspense. Well, here the obfuscation of the enigmatic menace is achieved more diegetically with grainy surveillance footage and military night vision. This in itself would be fine, but it becomes anti-climactic when the aliens are revealed to be a bunch of skinny guys in nondescript battle-suits.

There are so many great designers out there who would jump at a chance to create an alien race for a big budget Hollywood film, so it's incredibly depressing and disappointing when the invaders in Battle: Los Angeles look like the goofy robots out of The Phantom Menace ("hit the nose!") They're also uninspiringly accompanied by that bog-standard warbling/clicking sound that seems to come with all post-Predator aliens too. Even their technology is ridiculously straight-forward. I couldn't get over how boring they were... they weren't scary or iconic in the slightest. It's like the designers had a mandate to make the aliens as forgettable as possible.

All that aside, I think my main criticism of this film would be that it feels very much like an X-Box game. You might like it if you're a fan of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare or just enjoy action-orientated war films, but as hard as Eckhart and Liebesman try, it just isn't very interesting.
20
Vote
   


Blade Runner

October 27th 2010 09:38


I think Blade Runner is at least important in terms that it pretty much defined what a Director's Cut can be. The controversy surrounding the way Ridley Scott's new cut changed the meanings behind the film still reverberates amongst critics, students, fans and even the cast (Harrison Ford still disputes any notions that his character might be a replicant). That aside, Blade Runner also remains a highly seminal piece of sci-fi film noir, and still looks great some thirty years after its production.

Deckard (Ford) is a semi-retired 'Blade Runner', a detective/bounty hunter-like figure who tracks down and 'retires' rogue replicants. Replicants (derogatorily referred to as 'skin jobs') are human-like artificial life forms (it isn't 100% clear if they are purely robotic or not) with a lifespan of just four years. Sometimes they develop a more than cursory self-awareness and approach human levels of emotional maturity, which can lead them to abandon their designated jobs in favour of free will. This is where Deckard comes in, and in this case he must track down a gang of four replicants who seek a 'cure' to their short lifespans - a mission that will bring him face to face with the enigmatic replicant Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).

There's a lot to consider in Blade Runner. On one level it's a shadowy, gritty film noir with more than a few stylistic nods to the genre... Deckard is a Hammettesque hero in a shabby overcoat, Sean Young plays a femme fatale-ish character complete with 1940s hairdo, and Ridley Scott (for the most part) wisely opts out of futuristic fashion designs in favour of more endurable 'style'-based clothing in order to hit those film noir notes that help keep the tone serious. The future is given a neo-Tokyo look, with Asian diners and multi-level streets. In this sense Blade Runner uses a contemporary but forward-thinking landscape (the real Tokyo) as a template for a realistic-looking future. Harrison Ford is also just the right person to keep such a potentially lofty or arthouse experience firmly grounded (witness the sequence where he impersonates the 'morality committee').

Beyond this, Blade Runner also examines the relationship between science and nature. This is a world where animals barely exists (real snakes are said to be ridiculously expensive). Into this gap steps the replicants - the progeny of humankind and the next step in evolution (not the use of the word 'nexus' throughout the film). To make the point clearer, Roy Batty even howls and moans like a distraught wolf at one point.

Then there's the idea that Deckard might be a replicant himself... we're never really told anything about his past, his family photos look downright inachronistic for some unexplained reason, and then there's all that stuff with the unicorn (nevermind the fact that one of the other characters challenges his ability to determine if someone is a replicant or not, quote "Did you ever take that test yourself?") The line is further blurred via the relationship between Deckard and Roy Batty in the respective hero and villain roles. Deckard is shown unheroically shooting a female replicant in the back as she tries to escape from him - she never tries to kill him, and her only crime is to be an escaped replicant. The line is further muddied in the final scenes, with the film reversing the trope where the hero is shown saving or trying to save the villain. Deckard is left confused by the film's climax - it's less a man finding his humanity and more a case of someone who had their very existence shaken to the core. In my mind, Deckard is clearly a replicant.

So why did Ridley Scott stop making films like this in favour of more by-the-numbers productions with widespread appeal (EG. Robin Hood, American Gangster, Kingdom of Heaven, etc, etc)? His impending return to the Alien franchise doesn't seem to be a very promising indication of any kind of creative renaissance. Blade Runner however is a beautiful piece of exciting science fiction that ruminates on mortality, playing god and identity. There aren't many other films that approach the same level of synthesis between legitimate mainstream thriller and intelligent sci-fi concepts. It's quite simply one of the best science fiction films ever made.
173
Vote
   


The Road

April 17th 2010 00:59


The trouble with adapting a widely-acclaimed and Pullitzer-price winning novel like The Road is that everyone waits for it with held breath. The filmmakers have an uphill struggle in winning over their audience before the film has even started, and fans of the novel (and I hesistate to use a word like 'fans' in reference to such a particularly bleak novel) are resistant to the film's chance at success. I've long been a defender of Hollywood's tradition of sourcing films from books, comics, older movies, etc, but even I found myself baulking at the idea of adapting Cormac McCarthy's The Road to film (I was at my most worried when I saw the presence of Charlize Theron in the trailer). But now that I've seen The Road I find myself struggling to understand why this film failed to gain any Academy Award nominations... the film so perfectly captures the book in tone, characterisation and plot that it's hard to imagine a better or more faithful adaptation.

For those unaware of this story, it concerns the end of life on our planet. An unexplained cataclysm (most likely man-made) has rendered the Earth lifeless and the last dregs of humanity eek out a harrowing, godless existence surviving on the last morsels of tinned food and the flesh of their fellow man. A man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee, a young Australian actor who came to prominence in Romulus, My Father and is soon to be seen in the American remake of Let the Right One In) are two Americans travelling south on the roads of this wasteland. They avoid all other people (out of a valid fear of rape and cannibalism) and desperately hold onto their lives in the hope of finding something, anything, that might be a prelude to a better future.

I will warn any potential viewers right here and now that this is a relentlessly morbid and disturbing film. The man and his boy hold what they call 'the flame', meaning the spark of humanity that seems to have deserted so many of their surviving kin. The man has only the smallest flicker of hope in his soul, and the best that he hopes for is that he can equip his son to survive beyond him when he eventually dies (which he believes will be soon). Early on, the man shows his son how to commit suicide (he makes the boy place their gun in his mouth), knowing it to be preferable to the rape and slow death he will meet at the hands of other people. When the boy cries it's an awful squeaking sound that calls to mind a frightened or dying animal - it's that kind of movie. There is very little explicit violence in this film but there's a certain unbearable horror in a man no longer able to shield his son from simple brutalities like merciful suicide and larders filled with human livestock.

Mortensen is excellent as the man, he has a sensitivity about him that makes him believable as what might possibly be the last human left with any kind of morality. As the film progresses and their plight becomes worse we watch him deal with some hard truths - admitting that suicide might be the best option or realising that his young boy will soon be without him. Slowly his hope erodes away and takes with it his last remaining shreds of humanity. It starts to get to a point where the boy believes more in the man's ideals than the man does, and Mortensen does a great job of conveying his inner struggle in understanding this... that the boy truly does hold 'the flame'.

Australian director John Hillcoat (Ghosts of the Civil Dead, The Proposition) creates a stark vision of post-nuclear winter in modern-day America, relying on minimal CGI to achieve a memorably realistic end of the world. The Road starts out with a voiceover from Mortensen's character, a neccessary kickstart employed by Hillcoat to make the novel's subtexts clearer for the sake of a more focused film. The people in this world look like shabby Holocaust-hobos... an image that, when combined with the desolate wasteland they inhabit, makes The Road seem like a modern and even more depressing version of The Grapes of Wrath. I think it's a rather apt comparison that calls to mind the best and worst that humanity has to offer, a message that renders both works timeless classics despite the specific worlds they evoke.
67
Vote
   


Avatar

January 8th 2010 11:26


For a film that James Cameron has been working on for pretty much over a decade, Avatar kind of snuck on the world before exploding like a bomb full of hype. In the wake of Lord of the Rings and other CGI-heavy films it's easy to stop feeling excited about special effects, it's like I got to a saturation point where I just didn't care about how realistic computer generated effects could look... it felt like there was nowhere else to go in science fiction and fantasy movies. As you might expect, I was wrong. Avatar exceeded the bounds of my imagination. The computer generated wizardry is more realistic than anything else we have ever seen, and you'll forget that it's not real. Anyway, here are some further thoughts on the movie


[ Click here to read more ]
44
Vote
   




sup blogtards ive been busy lately with poon so there wont be any apologies so dont be waitin (youd do the same. well maybe not. you ARE on the internet). today i am going to take a more artistic look at the world of film magic and i will talk about the grand man GEORGE LUCAS and 10 undisputible reasons why he is the greatest director alive today with the possible exceptions of michael bay and joone


[ Click here to read more ]
133
Vote
   




sup suckahs. stu kicks here and i thought id bring all you chumps the gospel. so here it is


[ Click here to read more ]
117
Vote
   


This Russian artist came up with a set of illustrations that depicts classic sci-fi movies as old Russian woodcut panels.

It's a fantastic idea, and if I could read Russian, I'm sure I'd have a lot of information for you


[ Click here to read more ]
99
Vote
   


The Quiet Earth

March 13th 2007 00:11
The Quiet Earth
The Quiet Earth (1985)


Wow. I just want to say that a few more times... wow. Wow. Wow. It's movies like this that make you wonder, "How many more hidden gems are out there?" I read about this movie in a book called '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' and it sounded marginally interesting, and I finally got my hands on a copy just last week, and then I watched it and it was magnificent. What an amazing movie, where have you been all my life


[ Click here to read more ]
103
Vote
   


THX 1138

February 28th 2007 05:35
THX 1138
THX 1138 (1971)


For a long time while others wrote off George Lucas for his various abominations in the name of the ‘Star Wars’ franchise, I would defend him. I would say, ‘well, the first Star Wars films are great’… ahhh, but he only directed the first one, didn’t he? Someone else directed the grand masterpiece, ‘The Empire Strikes Back’. Well, I’d still defend him and I would say ‘but ‘American Graffiti’ is a great film, it’s fun and it’s entertaining, surely that’s worth something – and THX 1138 is meant to be awesome’. Mark those words, fellow film fans, ‘THX 1138 is meant to be awesome’. Where did I get this statement from? Various reviews, biographies of George Lucas, friends who had seen the film itself… and they were all WRONG


[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
   


Children of Men

February 21st 2007 11:24
Children of Men


'Children of Men' is one recent and decent film that didn't seem to really get any oscar nominations... it got a best adapted screenplay nomination but I think that was about it. Seems the Academy is still a bit snobbish when it comes to science-fiction films. If there's one thing that eternally shits me in this life of film-watching, it's people who are ready to write off perfectly good films just because they're science-fiction. As a result, there are probably stacks of people out there who will never watch this film... and that's a sad state of affairs as this is one of the best films of the last twelve months


[ Click here to read more ]
72
Vote
   


The Man Who Fell to Earth

January 26th 2007 04:52
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)


Who better to play an alien than everyone's favourite musical freak, David Bowie? It's one of those masterful strokes of casting genius that would make modern-day fanboys gush and slobber and cream their pants completely. Nicholas Roeg's cultish adaptation of Walter Trevis's progressive science-fiction novel has become a surrealist classic, memorable mostly for Bowie's presence. It was with some eagerness that I grabbed this film from the video rental store when I finally saw that it was available


[ Click here to read more ]
91
Vote
   


Enemy Mine

October 31st 2006 08:36
Enemy Mine (1985)


This is one of those films that I used to watch over and over when I was a kid. I'm always surprised to find that hardly anyone I talk to these days has even heard of it. It's a good film, dammit


[ Click here to read more ]
82
Vote
   


The Man in the White Suit

October 19th 2006 12:04
The Man in the White Suit (1952)


Waaaaaay back in the 50s, Alec Guinness made a bunch of films for the British studios known as Ealing. Ealing films have lived on beyond many of their similarly-budgeted British contemporaries thanks to their fine writing and performances... of the five or six well-remembered Ealing comedies, the four of these that featured Guinness are often grouped together as classics. 'The Man in the White Suit' is probably Guinness's least remembered of these four films (the others being 'The Ladykillers', 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' and 'The Lavender Hill Mob') and was Guinness's personal favourite


[ Click here to read more ]
82
Vote
   


Short Circuit

July 28th 2006 08:57
Short Circuit
Short Circuit (1986)


I used to love this movie when I was a kiddo. It's so 80s, so classic and corny and fun. It's always a laugh to go back and check out one of your childhood favourites, if only to see Steve Guttenberg, the man who opted to stay behind when the 90s arrived


[ Click here to read more ]
77
Vote
   


Moderated by Luke
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]