Battle: Los Angeles

First Hit: A poorly constructed commercial for the Marines.

In 2009 “District 9” gave us an outstanding film about an extraterrestrial invasion of Earth.

In “Battle: Los Angeles” we get an aggressive alien which wants our water but, besides landing in the Pacific Ocean, there is nothing associated with water during the rest of the film.

What we have here is a story of an aging, near retired Marine named SSgt. Michael Nantz (played by Aaron Eckhart) who, on the brink of retiring, gets pulled into duty to assist in finding some civilians who are holed up in an abandoned police station. They must pull them out within a few hours because the US Government is going to carpet bomb everything in Santa Monica as a way to stop the aliens.

As you might guess, they find the civilians; a young boy named Hector (played by Bryce Cass), his father Joe (played by Michael Pena) along with others. The Marines are tentative under Nantz because it is rumored he left a group of men in Afghanistan to die with him being the only survivor.

The film is supposed to be about survival, intelligence, and redemption of character but what I found was a film which was a continuous commercial about the prowess of the U.S. Marines. Quite frankly this was the worst intention and path the film could have taken.

The screenplay was mixed and when the veterinarian and Nantz dissect an alien to figure out the weak point and the way to kill an alien's body this film dove into the ridiculous. Then of course there is even the worse sub-plot of TSgt. Elena Santos (played by Michelle Rodriguez) and Nantz figuring out how to destroy the drones by destroying the alien command centers.

Eckhart is a good actor and here he gives his best shot but his talent is wasted. Cass is alright as the hero struck child who loses his father. Pena is mediocre as the father who tries to make lessons for his son during the time of crisis. He spends his time having his son honor Marines. Rodriguez is in her standard role as tough girl carrying a gun. I would like to see if she can act as a different character in some other type of film. Christopher Bertolini wrote this story and did a poor job of combining the intent of the Aliens (our water) with the story (how great the Marines are). Jonathan Liebesman directed this and I can’t help but think he was outside his skill set as this film is too loose and needed a lot of tightening up and focus. His first mistake, letting us see the invasion; then backing up the start of the film to before the invasion. For some films this works, for this it destroyed the point of the film, the invasion.

Overall: This film was one long ineffective, boring, and lousy commercial for the U.S. Marines.

The Adjustment Bureau

First Hit: A really wonderful, well-acted, romantic thriller.

There was very little that I didn’t like about this film. In fact the only thing I wanted more of was outrageousness and anger by David Norris (played by Matt Damon) at being told that “The Adjustment Bureau” was going to erase (“reset”) his brain if he told anyone of the bureau’s presence.

This is a film about fate versus free will and encased in an amazing love story. David is a young, engaging and occasionally reactive politician who unfortunately loses an election because of a New York Post publication of an old picture of him giving a moon shot.

While practicing his concession speech in the men’s restroom Elise Sellas (played by Emily Blunt) pops out of a restroom stall where she was hiding from hotel security for crashing a wedding party. Their immediate connection through witty conversation is so strong and palpable that I felt I was secretly watching a real and wild romance in the making.

Yes that's what good acting is about – creating belief. I believed David and Elise were truly and deeply connected after the first meeting.

The rest of the film is based on how well this scene is acted. Because it was so good the whole film works. The Adjustment Bureau are a group of guys (why weren’t there any women adjusters?) who influence small things, like a spilled cup of coffee, which change people’s actions and keeping them on their course as dictated by “The Chairman”.

Why is the bureau here? There is a scene where Thompson (played by Terence Stamp) tells Daemon (and us) why the bureau is adjusting human behavior. It is a quick history lesson as to how we are not only killing our fellow human beings but we're killing the planet as well.

Damon is believable and truly wonderful as Norris. Damon always gives strong performances and again here, he is perfect. Blunt is extraordinary. Her voice, beauty, witticisms, attitude and vulnerability is so present and alive in her character. Together I would rate Damon and Blunt as having the most amazing chemistry between couples of anyone on the screen since Jolie and Pitt in "Mr. and Ms. Smith". Anthony Mackie excellently plays Harry Mitchell the adjuster (and occasional Chairman) assigned to David but struggles to keep him in line with his destiny. Stamp was great as the “hammer” and higher-up who can straighten out Damon. Overall the entire cast was great. George Nolfi wrote a great screenplay and directed this film with expert aplomb.

Overall: Sure there may be unanswered questions in this film about fate and free-will, but sit back enjoy the acting and be transported into a great entertaining love story.

The Housemaid (Hanyo)

First Hit: Started with hopeful interest but, by the end, fell to uninspired.

I’m not sure if this Korean film sharing the same name with a 1960 Korean film is a remake or a reinterpretation. However, this film starts with some promise and fades quickly as there is nothing in the film to give the audience any idea the main character would act the way they do in the end.

It’s like there is a piece of background missing. It begins with a young woman Eun-yi (played by Do-yeon Jeon) getting out of the bed of her best friend. We’re able to piece together that this was an interim place for her to stay as she quickly picks up a new job as a nanny for Nami (Seo-Hyeon Ahn).

She is the smart cute daughter of Hoon (played by Jung-Jae Lee) and the very pregnant Haera (played by Seo Woo). Hoon is attracted to Eun-yi’s beauty and innocence and directs her to have sex with him. I say direct because the class system of Korea plays a prominent role in this film as does the employer / employee relationship.

The relationship continues and when Eun-yi becomes pregnant Haera and her mother plot to get rid of her and the baby. Part of the ploy works but Eun-yi wants revenge of sorts and makes a complete spectacle of herself at the end of the film.

Jeon was good up to a point. She played the innocence well but where was the background that had her act the way she did in the end? This was not her fault but the writer and director’s issue. Lee was arrogantly perfect as the super-rich husband who felt entitled to behave anyway he wanted. Woo was beautifully pregnant and OK in her role as the cheated on wife. Ahn was excellent as the daughter. Sang-soo Im both wrote the screenplay and directed this film. He missed a critical piece in his exuberance to create a suspenseful thriller. One has to have enough information in the end to connect the dots or else the audience is left with film that doesn’t make sense.

Overall: There is very little to make this film work or interesting.

The Tourist

First Hit: Who didn’t know that Johnny Depp was Alexander all along?

Yes it is mean to give away the whole point of the film in the first line of a review, but it is also mean to put two strong actors in parts that don’t work well together, in a story that is poorly created, build some fluff around it, then make it about life and death and hope we like it, let alone believe it.

In the scene where Elise Clifton-Ward (played by Angelina Jolie) strolls down the train looking for someone who is about the same height as Alexander (Depp) how would she have picked him? There is nothing about the “description” (about the same height) we are given about whom she should pick that would have had us believe that Depp’s character is Alexander’s look alike.

You can’t pick the height of someone sitting down. But, OK, we will live with this, but then there’s all this fluff about Depp being Frank Tupelo an American math teacher tourist who is just willing to follow, or more accurately be commanded by Elise to do what she wants.

First off Depp gave me no feeling he was a math professor and second he didn’t seem the meek person his role called for. Her goal was to set him up to be the real Alexander to throw the cops off. Why?

Scotland Yard wants Alexander because he owes 744,000,000 in taxes on money he stole from Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff) who gained his money from crime and being a ruthless mobster (why isn’t Scotland Yard after him?). Seriously, is this really a Scotland Yard crime? Even as both Scotland Yard and Shaw believe that Frank Tupelo isn’t Alexander they think Alexander will show up soon to see Elise.

But Elise is also a Scotland Yard undercover cop and some of the team wonders if she went rogue. Oh and Elise falls in love with whomever she is last with or that’s what we are told by Scotland Yard to have us believe she is falling for Frank Tupelo who is really Alexander. Confused yet?

Just watch the film some Sunday afternoon when it is on video enjoy the beautiful scenes of Venice and wonder what could have been.

Jolie is gorgeous as always and the scenes as she walks through the train and through the ball the staring is probably real. Jolie can be captivating. However, this isn’t much of a part and there isn’t much for Jolie to grab on to from an acting perspective. Depp is not very believable in his role as a math teacher tourist. There is an incongruence that just doesn’t make it work. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck directed this and I’m not sure why.

Overall: If you’re bored someday, pick up the DVD or use On Demand and watch some mindless fluff.

Never Let Me Go

First Hit: Although well-acted, for the most part, it just didn’t seem believable.

From the get go I kept thinking, why didn’t someone take off their bracelet? Why didn’t someone leave the country? Where was the rebellion?

Despite the unbelievable story line, much of the acting was good and the cinematography was outstanding.

The story is basically that some children in rural England, who are said to be clones (although unproven in the film), are being raised in large homes to eventually give their internal organs up for donation. There is a sense of pride that the children, when they become old enough to donate, stay alive long enough to donate 3, 4 and even 5 times.

A smart, sensitive and big of heart young girl named Kathy (played by both Izzy Meikle-Small and Carey Mulligan) befriends a young boy (played by both Charlie Rowe and Andrew Garfield) who seems to have no athletic or art ability. Seeing Kathy befriending this young boy Kathy’s best friend Ruth (played by both Ella Purnell and Keira Knightley) decides to use her amorous nature to get the shy Tommy to be her boyfriend.

Kathy does not protest much against this move by her best friend and this is emblematic of the whole film. Why doesn’t anyone protest their life? Could the indoctrination of the school’s teachers be so oppressive that no one dares to protest? Even when the teacher Miss Lucy tells the kids that their life exists only to be the suppliers of body parts to other people, no one protests.

The only noticeable appearance that these children and young adults are being physically controlled is the metal bracelet which they wave over a box near a door entrance each time they walk in or out of their home recording their comings and goings.

Rowe and Purnell were very good as the young Tommy and Ruth respectively. However, Meikle-Small was outstanding as the young Kathy. She really shined. Mulligan as the older Kathy only makes the part work when she is playing a late 20 or early 30 year old person. Mulligan, as I’ve stated before, needs to play more chronologically correct roles for her actual age. Although she may look young, her eyes belie the age of the parts she is playing. She is too mature for them. Garfield does a good job of being Tommy, a boy and young man who is a little slow in the exterior but of beautiful heart. Knightley is OK as the mid-teen but becomes much better when she becomes the donor because there is a soulfulness she emotes which rings true for the part. Kazuo Ishiguro wrote the novel on which Alex Garfield based his adequate screenplay. I’ve not read the novel so I don’t know if the storyline problems are with the novel or adaptation. Adam Kimmel did an outstanding and superb job as cinematographer as the pictures of rural England are dead on perfect and created an outstanding reflection of the mood. Mark Romanek directed this and I wonder how it felt to film a storyline which had such a gaping hole in logic.

Overall: Outside of a hole in the storyline, the beauty of the pictures and some of the acting made this film watchable.