*pinches the bridge of his nose*

A la Peter Griffin...the patriarch of the Family Guy clan, when exasperated, perhaps in the presence of one "Buzz Killington".

And that about sums it up after viewing Battle: LA.

SPOILERS ABOUND. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

I'll just point out the meager positives before I move in to the full onslaught of negativity and ranting.

It delivered.

It was exciting and the action was crazy, over-the-top fun. The effects were well executed. It wasn't boring. The sound system @ the ArcLight was amazing. It blew me to the back of the theatre. No one plays a better hard lesbian military chick than Michelle Rodriguez (and that's apparently all she does). Aaron Eckhart: I want to lick that rigid divet in your chin.

Now, moving on.

I will freely admit that I have never been in the military. I never will be in the military and I never want to be. So I fully understand the fact that I may not "get" the brother/sister hood of those who serve in the armed forces. The other half pointed out that the relationships built in these situations can be deeper, more heartfelt and "romantic" (I don't mean sexual) than anything you may ever experience w/ an actual blood relative. It's DEEP. I get it. So that being said...I didn't buy it. It didn't work. It was a schmaltz HEAVEN.

My comparison is Backdraft. I'm not a firefighter, but the emotional aspect of that picture was not lost on me. I've never pulled a cat from a tree or lost a co-worker to a gas explosion, but I was still right there with them.

I cited two other pictures to the other half which would be considered heavy action pieces, but still managed to to have a heart...an emotional side that did not distract from the action, but enhanced it. Aliens and District 9. Both are sci-fi through and through, peppered with incredible heart-pounding action sequences, but their "sappy" (although NOT sappy) moments worked. Was it the performers, the writing? I just don't know. But every moment Battle: LA slowed down to focus on emotions, they lost me. A few examples.

1) The WRETCHED speech about Eckhart's lost men (in all of his many battles)...naming off the soldiers and their #s. *rolls eyes* It's so reminiscent of another "aliens attack earth" flick. Independence Day. While I also loved the action and destruction those critters dished out, I always took issue w/ the lame-ass "this is our Independence Day" speech from Bill Pullman. Why can't these types of speeches be taken away for good? It's just so cheesy.

2) I don't necessarily think I'm a jaded movie-goer, although I do have some friends who call me a movie snob. Let me just clear this up. There are certainly a few films I walk into with high expectations (i.e. the mega-failure--George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead and the mega-success--the remake of Dawn of the Dead). But generally not. So I'm not waiting for these pictures to disappoint, but they do. My bottom line is, "if they don't work, they don't work". That's up to the filmmakers. But I digress... I can no longer stand the schmaltzy (this is my new word with which to gripe) crap coming from so many films. In Battle: LA, there's a perfect example. I can't buy on-the-spot relationship connections, most of the time. When Eckhart ropes out of the helicopter, the Bridget Moynahan character screams, "NO!" Why? You met this guy a few hours ago, in the middle of an alien battle. You don't know him. You don't know his job or his devotion to it. While I'm sure you appreciate the fact that he saved your life, you're in shock about the end of the world, and I'm certain you are just so fucking happy that you're out of the "danger zone" that you wouldn't even notice his leaving...unless you were having sexy thoughts about him, like I would have. Maybe that's it? Now I must defend the fact that there are "forced" relationships in the aforementioned Aliens. Newt and Ripley. Even as a kid when I first saw this film (minus the director's cut footage where we learn Ripley had a daughter--saw that years later--which explained it all!) I bought this connection. Cuz I was a kid? Cuz Weaver's a great actress? Who knows, but it worked there. I want the filmmakers to stop peddling this schmaltzy, make-me-gag nonsense. I feel like a boob pointing this out; with no clear solutions, but it just has to stop.

3) Stop using children as a way to up the emotion quotient of your picture. I'll look past the fact that little Hector had something to do, what with the death of his father and new recruitment to the Marines (I CRINGED at the "you're the bravest Marine I've ever met" line), but WHAT THE HELL WERE THE TWO LITTLE GIRLS DOING THERE? They didn't even have lines! Nothing for them to do but attempt to get the audience to blurt out, "won't somebody please think of the children!" I don't necessarily care for children (rub-off from the other half) in real life (there are a select few I adore--my nieces for example), but in movies I generally don't give a shit (call me the honey badger). I was much more concerned for the German Shepherd which showed up early in the film. Was he okay? Gee, I sure hope so. Poor pooch...

BTW, we even got a rendition of the "puts important article into the hand of a trusted friend/colleague and closes it with a squeeze" nonsense. GOD, give me STRENGTH!

I've grown tired of ranting on this picture. It was enjoyable on a very base level, but every single moment they tried to make human connections, it failed miserably and I was jettisoned back in to reality to think about what my bedtime snack might be. That basically means "it didn't work".

Battle: LA. You've not only lost the battle, you've lost the war.

That is all.