For the Defense: ‘Battle: Los Angeles’
Every once in a while, a movie comes along that all the critics hate but which we actually kinda like. "For the Defense" will be our platform to offer five reasons why the critics are wrong. (Warning: There will be SPOILERS.)
"Battle: Los Angeles" opened this past weekend, doing well at the box office despite getting absolutely savage reviews. And while I don't think it's any misunderstood masterpiece, I think it's much better than my colleagues do. How could I possibly like this movie? Let me count the reasons...
1. Aaron Eckhart is great in it. Improbably, it's now been 14 years since Eckhart came to the world's attention as the sadistic misogynist in "In the Company of Men," so it's no newsflash to suggest that the guy's a good actor: He's been great in everything from "Rabbit Hole" to "The Dark Knight" to "Erin Brockovich." But although he's done action movies before, he's never really commanded the screen the way he does in "Battle: Los Angeles." Is it a simplistic hoo-rah Marine character? Oh yes, absolutely, but Eckhart gives it a real conviction and gravity that makes you invested much more than you normally would be. Even when Eckhart has to deliver the truly dopey "here comes my backstory" monologue near the end, his confidence in what he's saying is pretty convincing. He's a guy you'd actually want to go into war with.
2. The set pieces really work. Because "Battle: Los Angeles" is an action movie, the only thing most people will care about are the battle sequences: Are they awesome or are they lame? And while they're not quite as groundbreaking as the movies they're referencing ("Saving Private Ryan," "Black Hawk Down"), they're muscular and effective and gripping in all the ways they're supposed to be. So, no, I don't buy the "They're so shaky and handheld that they're incoherent" argument: As a friend noted, director Jonathan Liebesman has a much better sense of visual coherence than Michael Bay does. You may think that's faint praise, but it's not: In "Battle: Los Angeles," part of the idea is that (like the soldiers) we're not always supposed to know where the enemy fire is coming from. And whether it's the first ambush in Santa Monica or the freeway showdown, Liebesman nicely conveys a battlefield environment with all the chaos and danger intact.
3. No lame emotional stakes. Granted, this is a movie in which we have to learn one important character trait about each of the soldiers -- this one's getting married, this one's got a pregnant wife, this one's a nerdy virgin -- which always seems like such a waste of time. But for the most part "Battle: Los Angeles" dispenses with such forced emotional stakes early on. And, even better, the film doesn't try to make us "care" about the Eckhart character in any meaningful way. He doesn't have to rescue his ex-wife from the aliens, and he doesn't have to work side-by-side with his estranged son to rescue Santa Monica. He's not supposed to grow or learn or change because of this alien outbreak. Maybe it's simplistic, but "Battle: Los Angeles" has the purity of a videogame: We've got to kill the bad guys. And that's what the movie does.
4. No lame political/social commentary. There's an argument to be made that the movie is one big glorified recruitment ad, except I do wonder how those in the military feel about the fact that half of the soldiers in "Battle: Los Angeles" die doing dumb stuff. But while I could do with a little less of the "Yo Joe!" spirit, it does have a great side effect: The filmmakers never try to plant any sort of "subversive" commentary into the mix. Because of the movie's pro-military tone, we don't have to listen to any characters talk about the fact that the alien invasion is somehow a metaphor for our own invasion of Iraq. That was really sharp years ago when it was done on "Battlestar Galactica," but now it would simply feel obvious, and judging by the mondo-clunky dialogue already in this film, I'm not sure I'd have any faith that "Battle: Los Angeles" could even do it justice.
5. It's big escapist fun. On a basic level, "Battle: Los Angeles" is just a blast. Sure, maybe it's not nearly as "fun" in the way that, say, "Independence Day" is, and it's not as epic as, say, "Armageddon" is. But it's not as ridiculous as "Armageddon" or goofy as "Independence Day," either, which I think is a major help. This movie simply promises that it will deliver a lot of explosions and carnage at regular intervals. In that way, it's actually much smarter than it's being given credit for. Liebesman and Echkart have to know that they're not making art, but they make the most out of a big-budget war/monster movie. That doesn't make it great. But that definitely makes it good for what it sets out to achieve.
The defense rests, your honor.
