The God Of Cinema Is Displeased...

Just Talkin' 'Bout Blood - A Pre-Review Rant 

Battle: Los Angeles makes warfare boring. It makes alien invasions boring. It makes excitement boring. It's the latest cinematic offering from director Jonathan Liebesman, the "talent" behind the horror classics Darkness Falls and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. My god, Darkness Falls must be one of the worst films I have ever seen. It's filled with shoddy dialogue, plotholes large enough to fall through, wooden acting, and uninspired cinematography.


I understand that the horror genre is not exactly held as high cinema in most circles, but those circles are not worth mentioning. The classics of horror are just as worthy of accolades as Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane, but their very subject matter prevents them from receiving the praise they richly deserve. Of course there are a few that manage to break through that glass ceiling and become embraced by the mainstream.

Films like The Exorcist or Silence Of The Lambs are prime examples. Even George Romero's Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead are well known and beloved by many. But what about his films Martin and The Crazies? I believe those movies are just as deserving of praise by the mainstream, if not moreso. I believe those are his crowning achievements, and it's a travesty that too many have simply forgotten about them. These films have simply slipped through the cracks.

And what about Dan O'Bannon's Return Of The Living Dead? A true classic that fully embraces the trappings of its genre and creates something new and unique, an endlessly entertaining film. And perhaps Sam Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy is no longer the underground sensation it used to be, what with Anchor Bay's endless cycle of DVD re-releases and the filmmaker's mainstream resurgence as the director of the Spider-Man films, but the vast majority of filmgoers still have no idea what a "deadite" is, and that's a crying shame.

I'm a horror movie guy. I have been since I saw Fright Night when I was six years old. This film wasn't just my first exposure to vampires in cinema. Watching Charlie Brewster and the fearless vampire killer Peter Vincent do battle with the bloodsucking monster Jerry Dandridge represents my first conscious memory of the horrow genre. I didn't know about the genre's rich and varied history. I hadn't yet been introduced to the golden age giants Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney (Sr. and Jr.) or Claude Rains. The films of Wes Craven, John Carpenter and George Romero were unknown to me. But I would soon educate myself.

I vividly remember the moment in Fright Night that made me fall head-over-heels in love with the genre...

Throughout the film, Peter Vincent is revealed to be a cowardly man. He doesn't believe in vampires. Who would? He has lost his faith in everything: himself, humanity, even God. Although he eventually comes to terms with the fact that vampires do exist, he still can't find the courage to overcome his self-doubts. At one earlier point in the film, he confronts Dandridge with a crucifix, but the old vampire laughs off his attempt, telling Peter that he has to have faith for the crucifix to harm him.

But at the climax, he stands face-to-face with Dandridge once more. Peter boldly steps forward, producing the crucifix. Amused, Dandridge mocks him again. But behind the vampire, Peter sees the first rays of the morning sun illuminate the window, and with a confident smile he thrusts the crucifix into the vampire's face. Dandridge, overcome by pain, retreats to the cellar, and to his eventual demise.

As a child, watching this scene unfold was a revelation. I still can't accurately describe how it made me feel. But for this six year-old boy, the moment was transcendent. I was hooked, and I never looked back.

I suppose I'm trying to say that as a horror fan, it pains me to see films like Darkness Falls exist. It's essentially worthless, with no redeeming value. For pity's sake, it's not even a feature-length film! Without it's insanely bloated end credits sequence, the movie is barely 70 minutes long. The studio extended the end credits so extensively because without their padding, the movie would have been too short to release theatrically. It's a pathetic excuse for a motion picture, and the very fact that it exists besmirches the horror genre as a whole.

Sure, the film was not a huge success. In fact, most people don't even remember it. Nor should they, for it's not worth remembering. But it represents what has become, in the eyes of the mainstream, the "modern" horror film. Short, disposable garbage. Jonathan Liebesman is not entirely responsible for Darkness Falls, but as the director he failed to bring anything worthwhile to the table. He's a dispassionate, point-and-shoot director with no style. I don't know the man personally, and he may be a perfectly pleasant fellow. But as a director, I don't like him. And Battle: Los Angeles does nothing to sway my opinion.

They've Come For Your Water, Chuck!

The film follows a platoon of US Marines as they engage an army of extrterrestrial invaders in the ravaged City Of Angels. What begins as a search-and-rescue mission becomes a suicidal quest to destroy the invaders' control center buried somewhere in the city, because if the Marines destroy the control center, then they shut down the legion of fighter drones that are laying waste to the city and hampering all efforts to repel the conquering aliens from our borders. Long story short, the Marines manage to destroy the control center, and after a quick jaunt to the desert to restock their supplies, they return to Los Angeles to take the city back. The end.

Battle: Los Angeles is barely a movie. There are no real characters in the film, only poorly sketched caricatures of soldiers we're familiar with from other, better war movies. We have the battle-hardened veteran trying to atone for the sins of his past, the enlisted man with the pregnant wife waiting at home, the wet-behind-the-ears recruit who can't wait to get laid, etc. Since there are no true characters in this story, there's nobody we as the audience can truly identify with. Nobody feels real enough to root for. And because of that, the movie fails on an emotional level.

But what about pure spectacle? Is Battle: Los Angeles worth watching as a brainless action movie? Unfortunately not. Director Liebesman, apparently inspired by Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down and the beloved Jason Bourne movies, attempts to shoot the film in a cinéma vérité, pseudo-documentary style using hand-held cameras. I guess I can see what he was trying to do with this. It seems as though he's trying to lend a realistic attitude to the proceedings, providing a sense of immediacy to the goings-on. But he fails miserably in rhis regard.

Ridley Scott's cinematographer for Black Hawk Down was Slawomir Idziak, a man with the prior experience and talent to bring that sense of realism to the events of that film. The Bourne trilogy had cinematographer Oliver Wood, a talented man who has helped popularize this style with his superb work. These cinematographers know what they're doing. They're able to tread that fine line between realism and confusion with their camera work. Their films provide a consistent sense of geography in their action sequences. And most importantly, they know when to dial back the "shaky-cam" theatrics to simply allow the story to tell itself.

Jonathan Liebesman's long-time cinematographer Lukas Ettlin doesn't know how to do that. This is a filmmaking style he has no familiarity with, and it is painfully obvious to see. In Battle: Los Angeles, the camera simply doesn't know when to stop moving. When your cinematographer is swerving the camera around like a madman, trying to add unnecessary flair to subdued character-building scenes in offices and graveyards, you know something is fucked up.

I'm not the type of person who is prone to motion sickness, so that's not my problem here. No, my problem is simple annoyance. This film's cinematography is so distracting it keeps the audience at arm's-length, divorcing us further from the already threadbare story. So the film fails as spectacle, as well.

On the plus side, the effects are rather good, when we can actually see them.

In conclusion, Battle: Los Angeles sucks. It's yet another notch of mediocrity on Jonathan Liebesman's filmography belt. Shortly after the end credits rolled at my screening, a thunderstorm knocked out the electricity at the theatre I was attending. Walking out of the darkened auditorium my only regret was that the electricity didn't fail sooner.

P.S. - A review of Paul is coming.