Call of Duty: Defying the Critics

--reviewed by Jay

What do Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, and the last installment of Resident Evil have in common? The answer, they are all movies based on popular video game franchises, and they are hated by nearly all critics, garnering 16%, 19% and 25% ratings respectively on Rotten Tomatoes. These three catastrophes are not the exception but part of the rule, for the reactions to big screen adaptations of video games have been so overwhelmingly bad that one can almost hear the collective groan of audiences and critics alike when the trailer for the next inevitable attempt flashes across the screen.

Sure Battle: Los Angeles is not officially based on any video game, but just from its trailer and various clips shown around the web, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine the words Call of Duty floating in front of the title. So perhaps no one should be surprised when critics united in lambasting Battle: Los Angeles (33% on Rotten Tomatoes). However, it would be a mistake to take these reviews at face value; their categorical condemnation of the film reveal more about the intellectual laziness and arrogant self-righteousness of their authors than the film’s actual merits.

In my attempt to write a compelling review, I thought it would be interesting to deconstruct the arguments of notable critics who loathed Battle: Los Angeles so much. The first adversary that came to mind was New York Times critic A.O. Scott. Extremely knowledgeable and always well grounded, I thought rebutting his criticisms would make for a lively debate. Imagine my disappointment then when "Right then, as it lurches from Act II to Act III, Battle: Los Angeles reveals itself to be a lousy movie…" came to be the most substantive sentence in his entire piece. No matter, on to the next target.

After a few more minutes of searching, I came across Roger Ebert’s half star "F You" to the movie (maybe he needed more material for the next edition of his book, Your Movie Sucks). The usually reasonable Ebert sounded especially shrill and petulant here, like a bratty toddler who didn’t have his milk heated to the perfect temperature, so forgive me if I occasionally overstep the bounds of polite conversation.

Ebert: Meteors fall to Earth near the coasts of the world's major cities. They contain alien troops, which march up from the beach with their weapons of war and attack mankind. No reason is given for this, although it's mentioned they may want our water.

Me: I believe you answered your own question – they came for our water. Even if no reason is ever offered does it really matter? Does any alien invasion movie/book include an extended exposition detailing the reasons for attacking earth? Did Star Wars ever give a reason for why the rebels are fighting the Empire other than the rebels are good and the Empire is evil? The movie is not called Battle Plan: Inside the Alien War Room, it’s called Battle: Los Angeles. If you are looking for in-depth psychoanalysis of alien personality, I suggest you play Starcraft.

Ebert: The aliens are hilarious. They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby. As the Marines use their combat knives to carve into the aliens, they find one layer after another of icky gelatinous pus-filled goo.

Me: I’m sorry, I forgot you had a Phd in extra terrestrial physiology. The director should have hired you as a consultant in order to ensure the aliens look and feel more realistic. Perhaps they should have also included some shots of aliens giving birth and breast-feeding their young in order to satisfy your need for anatomical correctness.

Ebert: (Referring to the editing style) In a mess like this, the frame is filled with flashes and explosions and shots so brief that nothing makes sense. When I think of the elegant construction of something like "Gunfight at the OK Corral", I want to rend the hair from my head and weep bitter tears of despair. Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either ignorant of, or indifferent to.

Me: I believe the editing style is deliberately chaotic in order to emphasize the frantic pace and confusion of a firefight. Not to state the obvious, but the ways we fight and film battles have evolved since the days in the old West when opponents faceoff in the open and blast away at each other. As even a novice of first person shooter games (let along a U.S. Marine) knows, concepts such as taking cover, coordinating fire and reloading are crucial to survival and winning the battle. Generations of filmmakers may have indeed devoted their lives to perfecting techniques to emulate the “Gunfight at the OK Corral”, but have you considered that perhaps those techniques may no longer apply, or are at least in need of modification?

Ebert: Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart.

Me: Why the need to make it personal? Should I close my review by calling you a washed-up has-been who’s mad because you can no longer identify, understand or keep pace with not only changes in popular culture but also innovations in cinema? In the words of Thoreau, "How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live".

Alas I will not end on such a sour note. I respect Roger Ebert’s opinion and judgment a great deal. I do not believe Battle: Los Angeles is a perfect movie; it is not. In fact it is filled with more flaws than achievements. Like Ebert and many other critics point out, this movie has boilerplate dialogue and a clichéd plot. The characters are types and eminently forgettable; by the end, I barely remembered the name of Aaron Eckhart’s character. But it was not devoid of merits. Contrary to what critics claim, it is technically proficient. The frequent use of shaky-cam and extreme close-ups (modeled after District 9) on individual Marines work to not only maintain the movie’s frenetic pace, but also highlight the extreme danger and isolation that each soldier must endure. In this (what I imagine to be very realistic) context, there is no time to think, let along spill out long uninterrupted lines on existential philosophy. Thus, even though the dialogue was (very) below par, it was neither frequent nor central enough to become too distracting. Also to its credit, the movie’s patriotism was understated and never strident or in-your-face (no "America, FUCK YEAH!" unfortunately); the approach of the Marines and filmmakers was pragmatic, businesslike, not melodramatic and contrived. In the end, Battle: Los Angeles is exactly what its trailer and posters try to sell you on, a badass action movie about Marines fighting aliens from space. Who knows, you might even pick up some tips in time for Modern Warfare 3.

Rating: RECOMMENDED

Additional note from X: Jay pretty much said all I wanted to say, that this is a movie for people who want to have some fun. Therefore, I am very glad that the producers made this movie, because if you were disappointed by Transformers 2 like I was (i.e. you loved the original Transformers movie and hoped the sequel would be equally as good), then this movie is definitely what Transformers 2 should've been. In fact, Michael Bay should be very scared, because Battle: Los Angeles definitely showed Michael Bay how to make an alien invasion war movie, and if I were Spielberg, I'd be sitting there thinking "damn it, I really should've hired Jonathan Liebesman to direct the Transformers series instead!"