by Brian Tucker
The big opening for “Battle: L.A.” last weekend points to moviegoer’s love for spectacle, catastrophe and humanity caught up in it. One need look no further for it than television news and the devastation in Japan. Those events made it difficult to view “Battle: L.A.” as it begins in Tokyo where destruction is underway by what is believed to be meteors. Soon, the same thing happens on the east coast and not since “Red Dawn” has so much American topography been battle scarred in a localized area. In this case, it’s Santa Monica, California.
“Battle: L.A.” is Hollywood high concept all the way – aliens invade earth and we fight back against the impossible. It’s big, fun and loud. And in the age of terrorism, a bit too close to home. In title, concept and look, it feels like a movie based on a video game only there’s not one as source material. The plot is bare-bones – a platoon of marines fight to survive as a mechanized alien race tears across California taking resources and killing everything in its path. As always, they’re better equipped and the humans are outgunned.
This movie falls under an un-named genre I call the “everything goes wrong movie.” If you’ve seen “Sunshine” you know. Things keep getting worse over two hours for the movie’s characters. The trick to recycling the disaster/sci-fi genre is to make it fresh. The filmmakers aim to but essentially there’s little save for that it focuses strictly on the marines and less on aliens destroying other countries around the world (think “Signs”). The POV in the movie is the soldier’s – on the street, in a firefight, and in danger. The camera never lets us forget, handheld and shaky.
“Battle: L.A.” is all-action , taking a “Black Hawk Down” street fighting approach to remaking “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.” It moves fast – we meet a 20 year marine (Aaron Eckhart) set to retire as aliens advance on Los Angeles. In quick succession we’re then introduced to a platoon of marines, so fast the filmmakers decided to put their name and ranks on the screen. The group is varied, to some degree heavy on the clichés, but the movie does its best to bury them until needed for a gag or emotional plug. The marines are humanized more than other movies but remain a list of types – about to be married, suffering from PTSD, too young, from New Jersey, etc. But once deployed in Santa Monica and fight street to street many are lost in a blaze of gunfire and smoke. It’s so uneven it’s hard to relate to them. This problem is solved when the marines happen upon civilians but these characters – played by well-known actors (Michael Pena, Bridget Moynihan) amount to little more than cameos in truncated scenes.
The issue of expediency really harms the movie, leaving characters lost in the haze of battle and the audience little to connect with. “Battle: L.A.” is a popcorn movie, that’s not the problem, the problem is that it’s all gunfire and rushed triage for the characters. Its also a by-product of video games and shows like “24,” playing out like the middle portion of a bigger movie, the first part cut down and the end designed as a tease for the next episode. This movie doesn’t really have an ending, just a rally point.
But “Battle: L.A.” is what it is – entertainment while chewing popcorn. Thankfully it didn’t take the path of irony like 1997’s “Volcano” or corny characters and gung ho stupidity in 1996’s “Independence Day.” Then again, those films had characters to actually get to know better. For all its high concept the “Battle: L.A.” tries to have heart and seems conceived as a franchise – one film after another as the fight moves on to a new city (“Battle: NYC”). That would have been interesting to see shaped over several films but “Battle: L.A.” supplants too much action with little back story, leaving audiences to ponder what was the point? The filmmakers leave the allegories to us. In the end, it leaves you needing more, not wanting more.
