Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Tuesdays, I will be reviewing Pacific Blue, a cop show that aired from 1996 to 2000 on the USA Network! It’s currently streaming everywhere, though I’m watching it on Tubi.
This week, the bike patrol’s stupidity and worthlessness puts everyone at risk. What are they thinking!?
Episode 2.5 “Point Blank”
(Dir by Michael Levine, originally aired on September 21st, 1996)
A report comes in about an armed robbery so TC and Chris speed off on their bicycles to catch the guy …. *snicker*
I’m sorry, I need a minute to stop laughing.
Anyway, TC gets knocked off of his bike by the robber, who proceeds to steal TC’s gun. Oh my God, TC’s such a dumbass! The real cops show up in their cars and Chris is all like, “Go get the robber while I tend to my fallen colleague and his totally rocking bicycle.” Seriously, Chris is kind of rude about it, frantically motioning at them to go after the robber. What else do you think they were going to do, Chris?
While TC searches for his gun, Chris discovers that someone has signed her up for a video dating service. Chris, who is always complaining about how she can’t get a date, complains about having too many dates. Then she complains that none of her dates work out, largely because of her whiny and abrasive personality.
Meanwhile, a little kid has lost his dog. Del Toro and Cory suspect that the pet has been kidnapped and sold to a research lab. They go from one sleazy kennel to another, searching for the dog. They take the kid with them and probably traumatize him for life. The good thing is that they save the dog and break up the dognapping ring. The bad thing is that their story and likable chemistry still has to share the screen with Chris whining and TC searching for his lost gun.
TC’s gun eventually lands in the hands of a bullied teenager who promptly threatens to shoot his bullies. But he changes his mind and instead give the gun back to TC. TC’s praises the kid for doing the right thing. To be honest, the kid threatened to kill three people. Haul him off to jail, TC! DO YOUR JOB, BICYCLE BOY!
My wife and I have been watching a Christmas movie every night for the last week or so. We’ve already watched DIE HARD 1 and 2, LETHAL WEAPON, HOME ALONE 1 and 2, CHRISTMAS VACATION, YES VIRGINIA THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS, FOUR CHRISTMASES and a Hallmark movie called THE MOST WONDERFUL TIME OF THE YEAR with Fonzi. She’s been wanting me to watch JACK FROST with her for a while now. I’ve been somewhat hesitant because a movie about a talking snowman not named Frosty doesn’t seem that appealing to me. I was explaining this reluctance to a couple of my co-workers at the accounting office, and they both assured me that it’s a good movie. With this newfound confidence that I would enjoy the film, my wife and I settled in to watch JACK FROST a couple of nights ago…
JACK FROST is about a guy named Jack Frost who is having a difficult time with his work life / home life balance. He loves his wife Gabby (Kelly Preston) and his son Charlie (Joseph Cross) very much, but his musical group, The Jack Frost Band, is taking up a lot of his time. He’s one of those dads who says he’ll “for sure” be at his son’s hockey game but then misses it because the band’s recording session runs late. It’s always something like that with Jack Frost. Tragically, before Jack can get this stuff figured out, he dies in a car accident on Christmas Eve. Jump forward a year later where a depressed Charlie decides to build a snowman like he and his dad always did together for Christmas. Just go with me here… through the magic notes of Jack’s old harmonica as played by his son Charlie, Jack’s spirit is transferred to the snowman, and the two have another chance to bond like they always wanted to. Will Jack be the father he should have been now that he’s a magical snowman dad? How long will he be around this time? Will an abnormally warm Colorado winter melt him? Will he get to watch Charlie play one more hockey game? These are just a few questions to be answered over the course of the film’s 100-minute running time.
I have always been drawn to movies that focus on the relationships between fathers and their sons. For example, FIELD OF DREAMS and FREQUENCY are two of my very favorite films. The reason I love both films is that dads and their boys are able to reconnect and experience each other in a way that resolves pain or regret from the past. The movies may not be realistic in how that happens, but I think each of the films tap into a universal truth about the connections between kids and their parents. If you want to see me cry, just watch either of those movies with me. JACK FROST seems to have this noble intention of magically re-connecting a father and his son for a second chance, and I give it credit for that. Only the most cold-hearted cynic would blow off the scene where Jack’s wife and son get to see him in his human form just one last time. It was touching. I also enjoy some of the songs on the soundtrack. I was able to take my wife to see Stevie Nicks in concert here in Little Rock earlier this year. I enjoyed when her “Landslide” played as Charlie made a snowman for the first time after his dad passed away. I thought that was a strong scene. With that said though, for me, JACK FROST doesn’t come together in a way that packs much of an emotional punch even though it’s clearly going for the heart. Part of that could be the fact that Michael Keaton turns into a snowman, and statements like “snow-dad is better than no-dad” are made. When I think of the other films, sure there are supernatural elements at play, but they’re still set in the real world, even if that place is in Iowa! In the case of JACK FROST, neither the comedy nor the drama worked well enough for me to get emotionally invested. The filmmakers overestimated the comedic nature of a snowman in general, and they seemed to dwell on that one note way too long, and to the film’s detriment. I did think a scene where Charlie’s hockey coach, played by Henry Rollins, refuses to allow the word “snowman” to be spoken in his presence was funny, but that was the exception and not the norm.
After watching JACK FROST, I do understand why Frosty has retained his place as the world’s favorite talking snowman even after this film’s 1998 release. I think the idea of a talking snowman works much better in Frosty’s context. As a matter of fact, I think I’ll go ahead and watch Frosty the Snowman again when I’m done here. But you never know, JACK FROST just may grow on me. Since my wife loves it, I know we’ll be watching it this same time next year!
The last couple years have seen the return of an old trend from the 50’s and and 60’s. Those decades were what one would call the Golden Age of alien invasion films and stories. We had alien invasion films both serious and comedic. They ranged from classics like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Thing to the awful like Plan 9 From Outer Space and tons of titles I could barely put down. In 2009 we had an alien-themed film which one could call the return of the genre back to the forefront. District 9 by South African filmmaker Neil Blompkamp was universally hailed as one of the best scifi films of the decade and even got nominated for an Academy Best Picture.
Then there’s the other alien-invasion film from 2010 which covers the low-end of the equation. The Strause Brothers’ own Skyline was universally panned by critics and audiences alike. While some did enjoy the film for it’s “so bad, it’s good” quality (I use that term as loosely as redlight hooker). This film was everything that was opposite of District 9. While I did enjoy that film because it was bad I don’t look back at it too fondly.
The latest film in this alien-invasion resurgence is from another South African filmmaker and one whose body of work is mostly genre films of the low-budget variety. Jonathan Liebesman’s own entry into this scifi genre is Battle: Los Angeles and it lands smack dab between District 9 and Skyline in regards to overall execution. It’s a workman-like film which takes an epic alien invasion war and brings it down into the pavement. We see the film through the eyes of a rifle squad of Marines and that’s where the film really becomes a really fun experience.
Battle: Los Angeles begins in medias rea with the war between the unknown alien invaders already having made their initial surprise landings and the U.S. military making it’s countermoves. We learn from a hasty news conference held by a military commander that the alien forces have landed at over a dozen or so coastal cities around the world have begun to move inland. I was somewhat discouraged to find out that San Francisco didn’t even last half a day and was lost. With Los Angeles the last major coastal city on the west coast that still had a viable military presence we hear one of the film’s tagline in that they cannot lose Los Angeles.
After this brief intro we go back 24 hours before the battle begins to get the character introductions sorted out. We see the Marines who will make up the squad the audience will follow through the rest of the film get their brief time to get introduced with some basic backstory to give them some personality. The one which stood out from all the war film archetype characters was Aaron Eckhart’s grizzled and retiring Staff Sgt. Nantz. He becomes the anchor that holds all the players into a cohesive unit and who also keeps the film from spiraling out into Skyline territory. Some of the cookie-cutter characters we meet would be the commanding officer straight out of Officer Training School who has never seen combat but is eager to lead his men and sees the combat-experienced SSgt. Nantz as someone who might usurp his authority. We also get the Marine whose previous combat tour has left him psychologically damaged and tries to earn his mind back into fighting state. We even get the young Marine who everyone sees as the little brother and who also happens to be a virgin.
To say that the characters in Battle: Los Angeles looked like they came out of old-school World War 2 war film casting call would be an understatement. The film just gives these characters (outside of Eckhart’s veteran noncom) enough personality that we’re able to distinguish one jarhead from another. Characterization is not one of this film’s strong suit, but once the bullets and alien stuff begin to start flying the need to get more character moments from these individuals really go out the window and the audience just holds on as they follow this Marine rifle squad into combat with an enemy force better equipped.
The film borrows much from battle sequences from Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down and Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan as director Liebesman opts to use a cinema verite style to give the audience a documentary, imbedded reporter look to the whole proceeding. The shaky cam look this filmmaking style uses may turn off some people, but the way the action sequences (which pretty much takes up close to 3/5’s of the film’s running time) were edited actually keeps the shaky cam from becoming too overwhelming. The film actually does a very good job of showing the confusing nature of battle, but also the fog of war for the grunts on the ground.
Before I get to what about this film really worked for me I will have to admit that the film’s screenplay is it’s biggest weakness. It’s a major weakness that for some viewers will sink the whole film no matter whatever bright points it might have. The film’s core story was actually pretty good. A story about an alien invasion told from the point of view of human soldiers on the ground trying to repel the invaders was a concept that hasn’t really been explored in this type of film. While that foundation for the film is strong the dialogue and how the characters were written left much to be desired. I put the onus on the flimsiness of most of the characters on the screenplay more than the characters themselves. Spielberg and Scott were able to use the very same war film character archetypes and make them work in their film, but that was possible due to much stronger screenplays.
In this film the dialogue’s very hokeyness doesn’t inspire as much as it makes for some wince inducing moments. I can’t say that all of the dialogue was bad. They’re no worse than most war films both good and bad. The dialogue just didn’t seem to have any energy to them and sounded as if it was still being read from an earlier and much rougher draft. I do believe that if the screenplay had been given a couple of doctoring by competent, veteran screenwriters the film would’ve benefitted greatly from it. Instead, the film ended up having to have a strong veteran actor in Aaron Eckhart deliver these average lines with enough conviction and gravitas to keep the film from becoming a parody of a war film. The fact that the film still manages to hold together despite the weaknesses in the screenplay is a testament to one actor performing the hell out of that script. I won’t even go into some people’s issues about the science or battle tactics in the film since I believe the film was consciously built to keep those vague. The film is not about the who or what about this invasion and why the aliens are here, but about that rifle squad from the 2/5 Marines.
Now, what really worked for me about this film is the battle itself. For a fan of both alien invasion and war films this one combined the two and succeeding in delivering what the filmmakers promised. Battle: Los Angeles gave a visceral look into the trials and tribulations of a squad of Marines as they do their part on the ground to fight off a much more advanced enemy. There’s a scene when the Marines are flying over Santa Monica on their way to their Forward Operation Base and we see a running battle on the gorund below between human defenders and the aliens who have moved up from the beach. Even the firefights Nantz and his squad were in once they entered the battle behind enemy lines looked to be influenced with the many battle footage of American forces conducting ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The special effects both CGI and practical to make Los Angeles look like a wartorn urban battleground was done very well. The aliens and their machines were given a look that wasn’t sleek and shiny but utilitarian and efficient. Some have said that the design of the aliens and their machines looked lazy, but I actually believe that if the filmmakers had fallen back on traditional advanced futuristic designs that would have been lazy. These aliens looked like they were design with only one thing in mind and that was to wage war on a people.
The score to the film by Brian Tyler was good and serviceable as his own modern riff on the old-school World War 2 film score, but I thought what this film needed was a veteran composer who knows how to bring out the machismo, gung-ho and esprit de corps of the Marines the audience followed throughout the film. It’s a shame that film composer passed away several years ago because he definitely would’ve given Battle: Los Angeles the kind of score which would’ve elevated the film from a thrilling war film into an epic one.
In the end, Jonathan Liebesman’s first foray into a bigger budget production hit more than it miss though one of those misses many of it’s detractors have seen as a fatal flaw in the film. Battle: Los Angeles doesn’t reinvent the alien invasion film, but just takes a new angle on the whole proceedings. It’s a film that shows influences from better war films by better filmmakers, but also gives hints that this young South African filmmaker has shown glimpses of talent that could take him places that his compatriot Neil Blompkamp has reached with his own alien-themed film. Battle: Los Angeles is just an old-school war film dressed up with modern fatigues and arrived onto the screen with all the positives and negatives of those very same traditional war films people love and hate since film as entertainment was created. It’s not on the same level as District 9 but it is definitely heads and shoulders above the very laughable Skyline of 2010.
As an aside, while I was watching the film I was struck by how this film looked like a preview of what Blompkamp’s potential sequel to his District 9 would look if and when Christopher Johnson came back to Earth with an armada of very pissed off Prawns…and speaking of pissed off Prawn: pig cannon.
Through the Shattered Lens 