Tag Archives: 2/5 stars

Movie Review: Battle: Los Angeles

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (In Theaters)

A group of marines try to save Los Angeles from an alien invasion.

2011.  Starring Aaron Eckhart.

How is it that aliens always know to go to major U.S. cities first?

Battle: Los Angeles was the second stop on Peter, Trevor and my movie extravaganza.  We already had pretty low expectations, but unfortunately the movie wasn’t even as cool as its trailer.  Battle: Los Angeles begins with 15 minutes of irrelevant exposition.  Basically, aliens are landing in the ocean along LA’s shore.  And they’ve pretty much already taken Santa Monica and the entire shoreline.  We get some information on some of the marines, but it is completely unimportant.  The first 45 minutes, unfortunately, are TERRIBLY DULL.  We follow Aaron Eckhart (who retired THIS MORNING but then was immediately redeployed, how convenient) and his platoon who go behind enemy lines to make sure no child is left behind.  They find the cliche scared little family and must return them to safety before the U.S. bombs the shit out of LA.  Of course, they also come across Michelle Rodriguez, our favorite token lesbian in pretty much every bad combat movie since she was killed off Lost for multiple drunk driving charges.  As usual, no one ever runs out of bullets and there is a lot of “hoorah”ing and back-slapping.  Aside from the terrible exposition, I have 3 major problems with the film:

1.  The Aliens: The most disappointing part of Battle: LA was, by far, the aliens.  The aliens were boring and irrelevant.  Unlike all other alien invasion movies, NOTHING was revealed or learned about the aliens throughout the course of the movie other than the fact that they’re invading the earth for its water supply.  Big deal.  There wasn’t anything humanizing about them (which is what usually makes an alien invasion movie interesting– if we can at least sympathize with them / understand their motives).  But the aliens were actually totally unimportant to the story.  You could easily have replaced them with ANY other military force, because the fact that they are aliens had no importance.  We were told one or two times that the aliens were invading other major cities, but there was no attention paid to this detail, and no follow up at the end of the movie to say “the aliens are retreating from New York” or “the aliens have taken Rome.”  As far as the audience is concerned, the enemy could be the Japanese or Russia or Sarah Palin’s mama grizzly army.  The enemy is terribly irrelevant to the plot and we know just as little about them in the end as we did in the beginning, and that is probably the film’s Achilles heel.

2.  The Location:  I read a very good review of Country Strong a few months ago that noted the major problem with Country Strong is that although the movie has country music, it doesn’t actually delve into any of the themes, topics or issues surrounding the country music industry.  You could have easily made the same movie with the same characters and called it Rap Strong or Jazz Strong and simply changed the city names and the soundtrack.  The same goes for Battle: LA. I was looking forward to seeing my former and future home blast to smithereens by aliens, but the city of LA was minimally important and hardly featured.  We saw the Santa Monica Pier and the 5.  That’s about it.  Really you could insert almost any other ocean side city and have had the same film.  Battle: Miami.  Battle: New York.  Battle: Honolulu. (Possible sequels?)  There was nothing important about LA that justified the film’s location other than the fact that LA is on the ocean.  Big deal.  Couldn’t they have at least blown up some famous LA landmarks or utilized the unique natural landscape to their military advantage or something?

3.  The Style:  I don’t know why crappy combat movies of the last 10 years have adopted a style of cinematography that involves hiring a cameraman with parkinson’s disease.  Newsflash:  The more you shake a camera, the less the audience can see what is going on.  Shaking the camera does not necessarily make it more realistic.  The first 20 minutes of Battle: LA didn’t even involve any battles or gunfire and yet the camera was spazzing around like the movie was Earthquake: LA.  Maybe they should watch classic war movies like Apocalpyse Now or even more recently, Saving Private Ryan, which employed a camera shake during bomb explosions, but did so tastefully and appropriately, without passing around barf bags to the audience.

That being said, the last 30ish minutes of the film were entertaining and what I was looking for in an alien invasion movie:  Good ole’ fashioned kicking ass and taking names.  Don’t wanna spoil it for you guys, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised to know that the movie should actually be called Aaron Eckhart saves LA.  Woot woot.

2/5 stars

Mini Review: Letters to Juliet

LETTERS TO JULIET (In Theaters)

On vacation with her work-obsessed fiance in Verona, Sophie comes across an old letter written to Giuliette (of Romeo and Juliet) asking for advice on a relationship.  She decides to write back, and lo-and-behold, the old woman shows up in Verona looking for a chance at love 50 years later.  Will they find her “Romeo?”

2010, Starring Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Redgrave

And here I was in the mood for a good Rom Com…

After hearing my mother and several other women rave about Letters to Juliet, I was super excited for this movie, but as a rom com connoisseur (embarrassing, I know), I was terribly disappointed.  Sophie and cute Brit Charlie had a great witty repartee the whole movie, but when they finally confess their love to each other at the end of the movie, it seems completely unjustified.  They’ve never been on a date, they’ve kissed once, and worst of all, Sophie’s engaged!  Their relationship goes from a witty, flirty friendship to a passionate words-only romance.  Where’s the sparkle?  All words, no action.  They say they love each other, but they don’t show it, and in a rom com, that is an original sin.  Why are When Harry Met Sally or You’ve Got Mail so great?  Because you can see the characters love each other without saying it.  Show, don’t tell.

And other than the depressing lack of true romance, you’d be better off watching the trailer than watching the movie, because the truth is that the movie is 1.5 hour long version of the trailer.  Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?  Find the letter, meet the old lady, search for Romeo, everyone loves each other.  Is that seriously it?

Bottom Line: In spite of my love for Amanda Seyfried, cute British boys and cute old people romances, this film was completely boring and unsatisfying.  If you want to see a great rom com set in Italy, try Under the Tuscan Sun, one of my favorite rom coms and a great performance by Diane Lane.  2/5 stars.

Lightning Round: The Time Traveler’s Wife

THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE (On DVD)

Based on the award-winning novel by Audrey Niffenegger, The Time Traveler’s Wife delves into the timeless romance of a woman and her husband who is lost in time.  (2009, Starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana).

Last summer I read The Time Traveler’s Wife while I was in Spain and, boy, was it a page-turner.  Told from the perspectives of both Clare and Henry, the book is a fascinating portrayal of a timeless romance from both points of view.  I absolutely loved the book and highly recommend it, but the movie just couldn’t compare.  How could it, when you don’t have a strong first person narrative?  It would be impossible to cram into an hour and a half all the details that make a reader feel such a connection to the book’s characters.  Henry’s time traveling isn’t explained very well in the movie, and that’s such a crucial part of understanding the story.  Sure the movie was fine, and had I not read the book, I’d think “meh, that was okay,” but the movie was completely ruined for me by the book.  The director, the cinematographer and the actors tried their best with the script they had, but nothing could compare to Niffenegger’s original prose.

Bottom Line:  Read the book first (not joking!) and then if you feel like it, see the movie.  The book is an absolute must-read.  Book: 5/5 stars, Movie: 2/5 stars.

Movie Reviews: Lightning Round

I’ve seen so many movies this week, that the best thing to do is make these reviews quick…

1.  THE HANGOVER (on DVD)

4 guys must piece together the faint memories of their crazy bachelor party when they wake up missing a tooth and a car with +1 tiger and +1 baby.

2009, Starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis, nominated for a Golden Globe.

Bottom Line: This movie is the guys movie– I enjoyed seeing it once, but I think I would have to have a Y-chromosome to enjoy so much “guy humor” for much longer.  2/5 stars.

2.  EVERY LITTLE STEP (on DVD)

A documentary about the 1.5 year long process of auditioning and rehearsing for the Broadway show “A Chorus Line.”

Bottom Line: One of the more interesting documentaries I’ve seen about show business.  Makes me appreciate Broadway a lot, lot more, but makes me very, very, very glad that I didn’t choose the dancing/acting career path.  3/5 stars.

CHI-TOWN! Museum Campus: Aquarium, Field Museum and Planetarium

On Friday, I spent most of my day on Chicago’s museum campus.  All three admissions were included in my Chicago City Pass.  On to the reviews!

SHEDD AQUARIUM: As far as non-Seaworld aquariums go, Shedd is tops.  Shedd has very extensive collections of fish and aquatic mammals, including several cute otters and sea lions.  The best part of the aquarium—and what makes it more like Seaworld (which I love!)  is the “Fantasea” show—showcasing dolphins, beluga whales, sea lions, penguins and hawks.  An excellent show!  They let the penguins roam around the audience, which was definitely a kid-favorite.

Bottom Line: A fantastic aquarium experience; well worth the price of admission!  4/5 stars.

THE FIELD MUSEUM: Yawn, it’s just another natural history museum.  The field museum had some cool stuff, but nothing I haven’t seen before (other than Sue- the most complete T-rex skeleton ever found).  The museum has a very extensive collection of dead-animal dioramas, like all other natural history museums, but having just seen live animals at the aquarium, it was kind of depressing.  Of course, the museum has the typical collection of mummies, dinosaurs and artifacts from Native American cultures.

One unique thing—a temporary exhibit about diamonds and diamond mining.  However, what made this exhibit cool for me was not the science behind it, but my girlish desire to stare at shiny things encased in silver and gold.  Realistically, I could have saved myself the extra admission to see the exhibit and just walked down the street to Tiffany’s for free.

Bottom Line: Nothing I haven’t seen before.  Instead, spend your time and money on Chicago’s Museum of Nature and Science.  2/5 stars.

ADLER PLANETARIUM: On the whole, I couldn’t care less about the science behind anything non-terrestrial.  I am terrible with math, terrible with physics, and terrible with chemistry, which basically rules out astronomy as an interest for me.  However, I really enjoyed the Adler Planetarium.  It is the first planetarium built in the Western Hemisphere and has an excellent collection of exhibits.  I learned so many interesting things about our universe!  They had a great exhibit on the Apollo program, including all sorts of real space-gear donated by the Apollo astronauts.  I also went to the Planetarium’s Night Sky Live show and really enjoyed learning about the constellations of the night sky and the galaxy we live in.

Bottom Line: Worth a look, especially if you normally wouldn’t be thrilled with the idea of going to a Planetarium (yes, that was me).  I’ve been converted!  Bring on some more Planetariums!  4/5 stars.

Mini Reviews: Did You Hear About the Morgans?

DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MORGANS? (in theaters)

A separated New York couple witnesses a brutal crime and is sent to Ray, Wyoming under the witness protection program.  Faced with this strange new western culture, they must learn to live together again for their own safety.

2009, Starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant

Why Can’t We Just All Get Along?

Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant movies are both guilty pleasures of mine, but after watching Did You Hear About the Morgans?, I think I’ll stick with Carrie Bradshaw and William ‘Floppy’ Thacker for a while.  Both actors tried their best with the script they had and on the whole, it was what you could expect out of the average 3-week-run romantic comedy.  However, I found myself depressed at the prevailing East / West stereotypes that drove the plot.  As someone who has lived in both the East and West for extended periods of time, I have a hard time tolerating the Westerner’s point of view that New Yorkers are snobby city-slickers who wouldn’t know one end of a horse from the other, and the Easterner’s point of view that Westerners are stuck in the 18th century and only interested in Walmart-like superstores, rifles, obesity-inducing foods and rodeos.  Why can’t we all just get along?  However, I am glad to see someone finally taking advantage of Wyoming’s beautiful scenery and beautiful tax breaks for filmmakers.

Bottom Line: As a romantic comedy connoisseur, it doesn’t even make my list, but if you like Hugh Grant or Sarah Jessica Parker, it’s a cute movie for a snowy day.  2/5 stars