That casting made sense for 1998’s ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,’ a Thompson-inspired film produced while Depp was still in his early 30s.

Now, as the actor creeps up on 50 (he’s 48), he’s far too old to be playing Thompson at the dawn of his muckraking career. Yet the age disparity isn’t what leaves a sour taste here. The film lacks a third act of consequence, and a text coda plastered on at the end hardly makes amends.

—–

But there’s still Depp dabbling in his hero’s life story and a snappy script which treats Thompson’s one-liners like those tiny liquor bottles lurking in a hotel room refrigerator. You know you shouldn’t gulp them down, but they’re too tantalizing to resist.

Depp plays Paul Kemp, a failed novelist trying to earn a gig at an English language newspaper in Puerto Rico circa 1960. Paul can’t speak Spanish, has a resume brimming with tall tales and shows up hung over for an interview with the paper’s editor (Richard Jenkins).

You’re hired! Now, start writing tomorrow’s horoscope.

Paul shows far more interest in the country’s bar scene than meeting deadlines, but he manages to pal up with the paper’s photographer (Michael Rispoli channeling a disheveled Jack Nicholson) while catching the attention of a burly U.S. businessman (Aaron Eckhart). It’s the kind of broadly drawn villain we expect from a Thompson project, but the actor imbues him with a nobility not found in the script.

The businessman plans to exploit Puerto Rico’s natural resources to meet his capitalistic whims, and he wants Kemp to grease the wheels by writing a few positive pieces about the pending deal. It’s just the sort of exchange that helps transforms Kemp into a social justice warrior. But before Kemp can save the world, he drops a little acid to ensure his life heads in a new, mentally addled direction.

Writer/director Bruce Robinson (‘Withnail and I’) recreates Puerto Rico’s past with incredible fidelity. It’s a gorgeous country, and ‘The Rum Diary’ is delectable to behold even when the story slows to a (pub) crawl. It helps that Depp and co. feast on some of Thompson’s best one-liners, a cacophony of wisecracks which pick up the narrative slack.

And there’s plenty of the latter, particularly with a tepid love triangle involving Depp and co-star Amber Heard. The blonde stunner may light up the screen, but her role isn’t dynamic enough to register.

Robinson only indulges in one acid-style trip, preferring to illustrate the numbing effects of alcohol in more realistic fashion. Audiences may feel hung over themselves watching a bleary-eyed Depp waking from one bender after another.

The sober Kemp allows Depp to dial down his idiosyncratic instincts, letting the character seem normal next to the circus of clowns around him. Giovanni Ribisi wears the floppiest shoes and grease paint as Moburg, a man who spends his entire life in an altered state.

The film coasts on its beautiful locales and trippy exchanges, but just as ‘Diary’ appears headed toward a grand finale, the story quietly implodes. Thompson’s own life provided plenty of adventure for those willing to tap it, but this ‘Diary’ wraps with a whisper, not a battle cry.

‘The Rum Diary’ recalls the dawn of a gonzo journalist, but it’s best served when letting its stars run amok amidst the beauty of Puerto Rico.

——

Occupy Wall Street does remind me of the 60’s anti-war movement inasmuch as they were both based on a lie. The dirty, filthy hippies didn’t care about the Vietnam War; what they wanted was an end to the draft. That’s why, after Nixon ended the draft, the anti-war movement broke up even though the war would rage for a few more years.

OWS is based on the same lie. These smelly, selfish, narcissistic, spoiled loser creeps want their student loans forgiven. They claim to be outraged over the government’s bailout of Wall Street (which is worth being outraged over) and yet they want their own government bailout and in large part support President GoldmanSachsFailureTeleprompter.

The only purists in both movements were and are the communists, fascists, and anarchists (but I repeat myself) using all that selfish, crybaby energy to further their own goals.  Oh, and the corrupt MSM  doing everything they can to hide these truths and dim-witted Hollywood one-percenters desperate to  pretend that begging to be a student loan welfare queen by defecating in a ziploc bag in the middle of a park is somehow avant-garde.

Just thinking about all of this makes me want to spend money at Walmart.

As a retired Air Force veteran, I viewed this movie from a slightly different vantage point than one who has never served in our armed forces. And I loved every minute of this fast-paced, heart-stopping, riveting movie…silently cheering on the small platoon of courageous Marines, led by 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez), sent out on what seemed like a suicide mission to rescue a few stranded civilians in Santa Monica before the Air Force was to completely level the entire city that had fallen to a devastating alien invasion.

What was originally reported to be meteors falling into the ocean along the Los Angeles coastline (as well as the coastlines of 20 other major cities around the world) was quickly determined to be a well-orchestrated invasion of a massive force of seemingly impossible-to-kill aliens… and they were everywhere… annhilating everything and everyone in their path.  As I watched the fast-paced, chaotic, and gripping action unfold, I often found myself holding my breath and sitting on the edge of my seat — myheart racing wildly, pulling for our heroes.  It has been a long time since I’ve been to a movie that left me exhausted like that, in a good way.

I appreciated how they introduced each member of the platoon and gave us a little insight into their frame of mind just prior to their embarking on this terrifying mission, setting the stage for some of the heart-wrenching actions and decisions that occurred throughout the movie.  It made them more real to me, as real as the stories and situations faced every day by our men and women deploying overseas into hostile combat zones.

The main hero of the movie, Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), was very convincing as a tough, no-nonsense, war-weary Marine.  In spite of having just gotten his retirement papers signed — a man who was struggling with some demons from his past (something not uncommon to our brothers and sisters who have served in a war zone) — SSgt Nantz displayed the kind of leadership, ingenuity, courage, selflessness, and compassion commonly found in the members of our military, most especially in our Marines, who are always on the front lines … and go where few dare to go.

I love that the movie producers hired members of our Marine Corps to serve as Technical Advisers during the filming of this movie to ensure every shot rang true to how Marines operate in battle and that the cast members had endured three weeks of intensive Boot Camp where they had no mobile phones, no television, no internet and no contact with the outside world.  They all slept in the same big tent, ate rations together, and acted like a cohesive Marine unit, wearing 40 pounds of gear at all times and staying in character between takes.

That rocks.

Coincidentally, I found myself relating to and rooting for the tough-as-nails Tech Sergeant Adriana Santos (Michelle Rodriguez) who was in Air Force Intel (I spent my 20 year AF career in this field), and kicked ass with the military hardware (pictured below with an M4A1 carbine).  Never fired one of those but have no problems handling an M-16 or a 9mm.

I thoroughly enjoyed the intensity and suspense of this movie, never knowing what to expect next.  Yet, according to Ebert:

“In a good movie, we understand where the heroes are, and where their opponents are, and why, and when they fire on each other, we understand the geometry.  In a mess like this, the frame is filled with flashes and explosions and shots so brief that nothing makes sense.”

 Clearly he has never been on a real battlefield.  War is hell.  And in today’s largely asymmetrical conflicts in the Middle East, it is every bit as chaotic and unpredictable as depicted in this movie.

It is no wonder the critics on the left panned this movie the way they did.  It is a pride-filled drama that highlights true heroism, military might, camaraderie, friendship, and forgiveness.  There were some very poignant moments in the movie that made my eyeballs sweat a bit and the popcorn hard to swallow having to negotiate its way past the large lump in my throat.  My heart swelled with pride at how these fine warriors took on every unpredictable, dangerous situation they encountered with uncommon valor — fighting for their families, their homes, their country.  They showed what true heroes are made of … and it made me think of all our brave men and women currently deployed who face unknown dangers, not knowing if they will ever see their loved ones back home again. 

God bless them.

I couldn’t help but notice some parallels in this movie to what we are experiencing right here in our own country.  These Marines faced an unknown, ruthless enemy who wanted our resources and were bent on destroying anything and everything standing in the way of achieving their objective.  There was a scene where one of the civilians being rescued, a young boy named Hector, told his father “Maybe we should try to talk to them.  Maybe they just want to be our friends”.  Sound familiar?  Sorry.  That doesn’t work when the enemy wants you dead…at all cost.

Honor, courage, service-before-self, love of country, and faith (love the close up shot of one of the Marines’ Bibles and the highlighted words “Through Christ comes freedom.”) …all things foreign and distasteful to the left and all the more reason for you to head to the theaters and enjoy.  As a strong proponent of promoting conservative art (music, films, etc.), I enthusiastically recommend this movie.  Go see it.  Let’s make it #1 for the third week in a row!

P.S.  And to our brothers and sisters in the Corps (the “ps” is silent for those who don’t know) …Godspeed and Semper Fi.

So clearly, you have got to go see this movie!

On the most recent addition of Take A Movie to Work over at Declaration Entertainment, Bill Whittle discusses the importance of this terrific action movie, which – MOST SHOCKING, EXHILARATING SPOILER ALERT OF ALL TIME – makes American soldiers, the best people our society has to offer, look like THE BEST PEOPLE OUR SOCIETY HAS TO OFFER!

Missing are all of the clichés we have come to expect from movies that depict our fighting men and women. There are no brooding loaners bemoaning the futility of war, no racist loud-mouth adrenaline junkies itching to kill anything they don’t understand, the troops aren’t victims of nefarious political posturing or trying to steal from the third-world…

Even the relationship between Aaron Eckhart’s battle-hardened Staff Sergeant Nash and the fresh-faced, just-out-of-school, naive Lieutenant is respectful and authentic. When the Lieutenant breaks down from his first exposure to the chaos of battle, there is no condescending moment of the wise-old enlisted man rising up to take command. Instead, Eckhart reminds the younger man of his responsibility, pulls him out of his own head, prompts him to make a decision, and then says “Yes sir.”

Every moment of this film inspires envy of the discipline, decisiveness, charity, and just general good character our military demands of its fighters.

Plus, they kick butt. Lots of it.

You know, according to German authorities, Arid Uka, the terrorist who shot and killed two US Servicemen last month, had recently viewed an Islamist propaganda video titled “American Soldiers Rape our Sisters!”

The four-minute YouTube video featured footage to backup its claim – footage of American soldiers sexually assaulting a Muslim girl – courtesy of Hollywood, USA. Specifically, the fictional footage is from Brian De Palma’s anti-American, anti-Military film, Redacted.

Redacted, of course, is just one of the litany of films to come out since Vietnam that portray our soldiers as rubes, murderers, rapists, dope-fiends, adrenaline junkies, or all of the above.

Movies have power. People spend almost as much time watching film and television as they do working – almost 1,500 hours a year. How much of our view of our military is informed or at least influenced by the way Hollywood typically portrays them?

It’s about time we started portraying them as the heroes they actually are.

“Battle: Los Angeles” deserves our support. Boycotting anti-military movies isn’t enough. You need to use the carrot as well as the stick.

While this movie, with its strong violence and salty language, is not for the kiddos, it is for everyone else – everyone who complains about the way Hollywood usually degrades our best and brightest, and who longs for a better day.

For a full video look at this film from Bill Whittle, and some great commentary, visit Declaration Entertainment and enjoy this week’s Take A Movie to Work.

In a role that will have many an important casting director take note, Aaron Eckhart stars as SSgt. Nantz, a battle-hardened Marine who finds himself at the epicenter of the Los Angeles front during an alien invasion. His squad, which consists of a number of character types standard to war pic fare (the inexperienced officer, the engaged guy, etc.), in most cases successfully engender sympathy, providing they survive long enough. Many don’t, and die faceless to us, though the sight of Marines being butchered by extra-terrestrial intruders is affecting. The aliens, who never speak a word and clearly have no interest in diplomacy, are a stock sci-fi design of flesh and metal hybrid, but are rendered convincingly, and present serious danger as their lethality is unveiled over the course of the film’s many encounters.

For the sake of foreign grosses (and perhaps the good sensibilities of the average left-wing film critic), pic avoids any outright pro-America patriotism, though its admiration of one of the USA’s most revered institutions is none-too-subtle. Truthfully, this might actually be the most respectful and reverent portrayal of American servicemen since “Black Hawk Down,” certainly light-years away from the extreme pessimism of, well, any military pic about our dual wars. It’s telling of the direction our culture has been steered that scenes depicting Marines engaged in unvarnished heroism are often simply dismissed as shameless and simplistic, though an attentive news reader will find evidence of such bravery occurring daily on the front. When Nantz and squad opts out of an exit late in the film to launch a suicidal attack on the alien fortress, it’s in fact one of many moving, unironic moments that draw attention to the risks taken by those in uniform. Detractors may sneer at this as fiction, though consider a scene in the aforementioned “Black Hawk Down” that sees two Delta Force operators volunteer their lives to cover a downed chopper crew; that was genuinely real, so, in comparison, how one accuse can the fictional Marines of “Battle: Los Angeles” of bravery manufactured purely as propaganda? 

Yet for every film showcasing the heroism of our armed forces, there are several more that primarily serve to showcase them as war criminals and psychotics. Add this to the list of films where traditionally conservative viewpoints are expressed through fantasy (think “The Dark Knight”) and to wildly positive audience approval, in contrast to left-wing pics like “In the Valley of Elah,” which find near-total audience indifference. Critical points might have been higher had it been revealed that Eckhart’s Marine was a rapist overseas, or had two of the Marines expressed a long suppressed homosexual attraction for one another. But no, just a bunch of straight, non-rapist Marines, none of whom are even polite enough to plug Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. The same critics who deride the dialogue and bravery here as unrealistic are mostly the same bunch who celebrated the chemical-candy artificiality of “The Kids Are All Right” as naturalistic because it hit socially trendy points. And the much-derided shaky cam style didn’t seem to bother as many critics when it was done in a much choppier manner for the proudly left-wing “The Bourne Ultimatum,” which featured action scenes constructed as if one had hit a Shuffle button on the editing suite.

Certainly, there are fair criticisms to be had, such as the manner in which Liebesman and screenwriter Christopher Bertonlini hammer in the emotional cues, or the visual style (more on that later) which some find so off-putting.  The dialogue is a mixed bag, saved by fine performances and the simple realization that it’s appropriate that these Marines not sound too much like screenwriters (or snarky film bloggers).

Eckhart, whose performance in “Rabbit Hole” was as fine a piece of acting as you could find last year, admirably and with great success segues into the role of a sturdy Marine, the kind old B-pictures insisted were in plentiful supply in Uncle Sam’s military. Physically stout in uniform and speaking with no nonsense nobility, Eckhart makes his simple dialogue into something that astonishingly reaches poignancy. Don’t be entirely surprised if he makes a career turn into leading action hero territory ala Liam Neeson, and should that be the case, it starts here.

Director Jonathan Liebesman stages the battles through shaky cam, and while not a Spielberg or a Scott with his firefights, ties it together with smooth functionality. Viewers not likely enthralled by gunfire and squad tactics may have trouble keeping up, but Liebesman’s action makes clear the relative position of the combatants, shows the result of successful fire, and creates phenomenal urgency. The invaders use ballistics weaponry, foregoing the lasers and force fields with which aliens usually seem to be armed, which creates a riveting combat atmosphere during the battle scenes, recognizably dangerous. As the picture progresses, the invaders begin to hemorrhage skill and start going down with every burst of Marine fire, but it’s buried in a climax suspenseful and rousing enough to be forgiven.

Of course, it’s possible to view “Battle: Los Angeles” without an ideological filter, which is to say as a humans vs. aliens action spectacle, fueled by equal parts military hardware and tough guy gumption.  Whether judging the film’s technical merits or its philosophical ones, count this as a major victory.

Last note: Despite taking place in the heart of the world’s film industry, “Battle: Los Angeles” was filmed in Louisiana. The state of California has made business so cost prohibitive that a Hollywood movie with Los Angeles in the title has to be filmed across the country. I’m not sure how even the densest tax-and-spend liberal can fail to see the problem with this, but, then again, I don’t live in California.

Let’s be clear – Battle: Los Angeles is a terrific action film that makes no bones about its pro-American, pro-military agenda.  And that fact has invited carping from the usual suspects, lefty movie critics who work themselves up into a lather over the portrayal of better men than they will ever be.   

And note that when I use the term “men” here, I include the fighting women of the US armed forces – don’t worry, critics:  Heroines like Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester will protect you . . . just move to the rear with the children and try not to get in the way. 

The fact is that science fiction has long been a tool to comment on the present, including the relationship between our warriors and our society.  Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers was a fascinating depiction of military life as well as what the author saw as a degrading, decaying culture.  The Paul Verhoeven film of the same name, though different in tone, had its own insights into military vulture, including coed showers and a machine gun-packing Doogie Howser.

The Forever War mirrored Joe Haldeman’s Vietnam War experiences.  Aliens, back before James Cameron decided that American troops were an enemy to be exterminated, has a solid take on military life.  Even the popcorn flick Independence Day, superficially similar in theme if not tone, demonstrated the military values of courage and honor – plus it featured a 9mm M9 Beretta-firing Adam Baldwin.

As awesome as Battle: LA is – and it is awesome – it is also sad that the only way Hollywood will depict the brave men and women of our modern armed forces is in the context of a fantasy.  There’s no need to create hideous villains – they exist.  Too bad the people who greenlight movies can get behind zapping space bugs from Venus but dare not depict the struggle of our troops against the buddies of the scumbags who flew planes into our buildings a decade ago.

There is nothing wrong with Battle: LA itself.  It is highly entertaining and visually spectacular, especially to those of us who live in Los Angeles and know the area – I drove through one of the battle locations this very afternoon.  And, most importantly, it gets the troops right. 

The tough sergeant is dead on in many ways, while each of the characters is a distinct individual that anyone who has served in uniform will recognize.  The critics’ whining about “cardboard characters” is simply nonsense – the fact is most of these limo liberals probably don’t know any warriors.  If there was any doubt their “criticism” is simply agenda-fueled cheerleading, their “Eek, a mouse!” reaction to Battle: LA proves it.  Frankly, its characters (thanks in no small part to a team of talented young actors I look forward to seeing again in the future) were more authentic than the hipster smartasses of the insufferable Juno or the fake cowpokes of Brokeback Mountain.  But then, it might take a little courage to stand up at a Manhattan cocktail party and say “You know, I really felt the camaraderie of the Marines in Battle: LA…wait, are you ok?  Someone call a doctor!”

—–

It hit me personally as well, especially in the form of the young lieutenant taking his unit into theater for the first time – because twenty years ago that was me during Desert Storm.   Here’s a special shout-out to actor Ramon Rodriguez as Second Lieutenant Martinez – he got it.  The desire to accomplish the mission, the responsibility for his platoon, the knowledge that as a lieutenant he really didn’t know anything – and further props to Aaron Eckhart as Staff Sergeant Nantz, who helps train his lieutenant  as generations of noncommissioned officers have trained their officers (including this one). 

What’s interesting too is how the Marines learn and adapt to fight the invaders.  In an early scene, they are nearly routed in an ambush sequence so well-directed that I almost shouted “Get that %$#&%$ machine gun firing!” at the screen when everyone went to ground.  But the unit pulls together and they do what US troops always do – they adapt, improvise and overcome. 

The end scene is particularly welcome – let’s just say that Kumbayah ain’t on these guys’ iPods.  Battle: LA, in a way, commits two acts of Hollywood sacrilege.  It shows American troops as heroes, and it proudly says that our country is worth fighting for.  No wonder Roger Ebert is spazzing out on Twitter; this kind of thoughtcrime is a million times more transgressive than all the pretentious “Let’s freak out the bourgeois squares” art film nonsense he’s defended over the years.

Also appreciated – the scene where the Marines link up with a Soldier who announces he’s part of the 40^th Infantry Division – the California Army National Guard unit whose patch I wore for nearly two decades.

As exciting and fun and welcome as Battle: LA is, it’s just too bad that the only time American fighting men and women seem to get treated with any respect in Hollywood is if the war that’s being depicted happened a half-century ago, or if the enemy has tentacles.  Well, there is a real enemy out there, one who wants us enslaved or dead.  When is Hollywood going to display even one one-hundredth of the courage of America’s warriors and dare to tell that story?

As the trailers started to circulate the web, I begrudgingly admitted they looked pretty cool.  My geek streak is certainly wide enough to get down with some old-fashioned alien invasion stuff and I realized that the movie would feature my beloved Marine Corps, OSR (Ooh-Stinkin’-Rah). However, my distrust still prevented me from getting excited about it.

As the release date neared, I was torn.  Do I go see the movie, take my licks and try to enjoy the action aspect of it or do I give it a pass?  I decided on the latter.  I was not going to pay good money to go watch my brothers and sisters get crapped on again.

Then, last week I read an article in which Aaron Eckhart talked about the film:

“This movie, in my opinion, is meant to be a love letter to the Marines. We had their full cooperation. They had my full cooperation. I tried to get it right. I think this movie is very reverent towards the military and reverent towards the ranks, both the officers and the Marines and the grunts. I don’t see how any Marine can see this movie and feel like they’ve been at all taken advantage of. I think this is going to be an oo-rah moment for them.”

Now, look.  It’s not like I’ve never been lied to by someone trying to get butts into seats but this struck me as a quote that would be pretty doggone hard for Mr. Eckhart to walk back.  So, I decided to take the man’s word for it and plunk down my money for a few tickets.

Aaron Eckhart is no liar.

Battle: Los Angeles is a kick ass war picture!  Eckhart’s turn as SSgt Nantz was impressive and the rest of the cast was very good as well.  Tons of action, some particularly tense moments and some tender ones as well.  And get this… the Los Angeles audience cheered at the end.  I haven’t seen that in this jaded town in quite a while.  My wife, her father and I left the theater exhausted.

Now, I’ll leave the critiques of the finer points of filmmaking to those who do it (I’m looking at you, Leigh Scott).  My mission today is to set your mind at ease and get your butts into seats.   No sucker punches in this one, kids.

Eckhart called it a “love letter”.  Marines, prepare to be wooed.

Semper fi.

When The Washington Post talks about how the film isn’t “interested in allegory, nuance or social comment,” what they really mean is “left-wing allegory, nuance and social comment.” In other words, they want allusions to how George W. Bush is a war criminal. When the Leftists at Movieline declare the film “the emptiest form of sci-fi action,” they mean empty of the left-wing stuff that makes them wet — stuff about how Marines are jarhead racists and the aliens are really us, or something. When the New York Times laments a lack of “interesting political implications to chew over,” they mean left-wing political implications to chew over — like how man-made Global Warming means we deserve an alien invasion.

And finally, when Left-wing extremist Roger Ebert is made so upset by the film he declares those who disagree with his hit-job review  ”idiots” and writes: “Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism” —   well, to be honest, no one knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Let’s go down the list, though, shall we?

1. Lacks allegory:

A film that gives us a ruthless enemy only interested in submission  has plenty of allegory — what you might call a refreshing allegory.  Not the kind of allegory left-wing critics like, but allegory nonetheless. The enemy we face now in the form of Islamists don’t want to talk, debate or discuss terms. They want us dead. All of us. Even Hollywood pansies who suck up to them in mega-flops.

2. Lacks social commentary:

You have to be a nitwit not to see the “social commentary” found in a story where liberal Los Angeles is invaded by this same enemy;  where the city whose number-one industry relentlessly trashes the military can only be saved by a platoon of God-fearing, masculine, openly patriotic Marines. Even more delicious is that most of the action takes place in Santa Monica, a city more hostile to all-things American than any I have walked through. That’s not just “social commentary,” it’s deliciously subversive social commentary.

3. Lacks interesting political implications to chew  over:

See 1 & 2 and then see the movie again without partisan blinders. This Marine platoon epitomizes the American ideal of e pluribus unum — “Out of many, one.” Most every race, creed and color is represented in this group of men and it’s never any kind of issue or even mentioned. These men are Americans  and they don’t see each other as anything more or less. They are brothers brought together by the values they share in common. The evil of multiculturalism, the shallow differences the Left uses to divide us  have no place among these brave Marines — including one who enlisted to earn his American citizenship.  

Chew on that.

4. Empty sci-fi:

Of course the film is empty to the same Leftists who have turned nihilism into a theme and narcissism into a virtue. How could the mentally ill possibly recognize the rich thematic fullness and meaning found in a story that explores themes such as bravery, honor, valor, country, self-sacrifice, brotherhood, forgiveness, and what it means to be a man? Themes such as these are kryptonite to the Left and so their only defense is to make us feel uncool for being affected by them. That’s why instead of using the word “country” they use the word “jingosim.” “Valor” becomes “corny.” “Self-sacrifice” becomes “hokey. ” “Honor”  is twisted into “old-fashioned.”

Let me put it this way: “Battle: Los Angeles”  is the most subversive film to come out of Hollywood since “300.” It’s also not partisan or political in any way. We are watching a brutal alien invasion of Los Angeles from the point of view of a platoon of United States Marines — men who love their country, each other, and stand for the finest traditions and values America and our military has to offer.  Director Jonathan Liebesman honors these men and writer Christopher Bertolini is true to them.

Better still, this is an absolutely terrific action film. The story grabs you within seconds and never lets go. The pacing is perfect, the plot is brilliantly simple, the actors are terrific, you care deeply for the characters, the action is gripping, and the special effects convincing.  Best of all, there are a number of very moving scenes. In fact, the whole movie has a rich emotional undercurrent throughout because SSgt. Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) and his men are on a mission to rescue and protect civilians — they are doing what the U.S. Military always does, they are risking their own lives for people they’ve never met — they are running towards the danger as everyone else runs away.  

 The characters might be archetypes of an old WWII movie, but they’re archetypes for a reason — they work. The idea is to get to the action and in order to do so the characters have to be set up quickly and effectively. “Battle: Los Angeles” does this effortlessly and by the time the almost non-stop action begins,  you worry about these men — mainly because they are men to be proud of. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a sense of humor or even that there isn’t some conflict between them. They’re flesh and blood, but at the same time, they represent the very best in us — something we should all aspire to.

My only complaint is the shaky-cam, but  to be perfectly honest, the story was so engrossing I hardly noticed. And since it was Take Your Pretty Wife to Work Day, I can tell you that she can’t wait to see it again.

Yes, liberals, troop-bashers, aging hippies, above-it-all hipsters, America-haters, and sophisticated literary types should stay far away. Go watch “Green Zone” again. The rest of us need to get out there and see this. Not as some sort of political gesture – but because this is an exciting, moving, intelligently made actioner that ennobles the human spirit and the things we hold dear.

P.S. There is one moment that took me completely out of the movie. While running through Santa Monica, our heroes pass a store with a “Support the Troops” sign in the window next to an American flag. There’s no way you’d ever see such a thing in Santa Monica without the word “fascist” spray-painted across it. Aliens I buy, but that went too far.

The new movie developed by New Line and now released by Warner Bros is based on the book of the same name co-written by former Sex & the City scribes Greg Behrendt and Liz Tucillo. The line itself has come to be a reassuring fallback for women in the dating scene (and I’m guessing single guys have adopted the mentality as well in the rough-and-tumble world of dating).

Produced by Flower Films, founded by Barrymore and Nancy Juvonen (wife to soon-to-be late night TV host Jimmy Fallon), Not That Into You features a blockbuster cast, including Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland), Kevin Connolly (from HBO’s Entourage), Justin Long (the Mac guy from the Apple vs. PC commercials), Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers), Scarlett Johansson (Vicky Cristina Barcelona) and Barrymore herself. But the star who seems to add the most sizzle to the project is the one who’s literally “lived” the catch-phrase.

Emmy winner Jennifer Aniston, who reached super-stardom as Rachel on NBC’s mega-hit Friends, has been almost constant tabloid fodder since she fell into the arms of Brad Pitt. Among Hollywood’s most bankable big screen actors, the marriage seemed to elevate her to show biz royalty – until she found out that Brad was “just not that into” her.

Aniston turns 40 on Wednesday, but she made an appearance on Ellen and talked about the milestone, “I found a really long gray hair, and it kind of flipped me out. It’s not my first, but it’s the fact that it was so long. I was like, ‘Oh that’s been there. How many others are there, and what does that mean? It actually brought me to tears, slightly.” Gray hair or not, she continues to have an “on-again-off-again” romance with Grammy winning pop star John Mayer, who is about nine years her junior.

Since her divorce from Pitt, the almost-40 actress has proved to be formidable at the box office.

JENNIFER ANISTON’S LAST FIVE MOVIES
Rumor Has It – $7.5M opening (first full weekend) – $43M cume
Friends with Money – $3.2M (wide break) – $13.3M cume
The Break-Up – $39.1M opening – $118.7M cume
Marley & Me – $36.3M opening – $140M (to-date – likely to reach $145M)
He’s Just Not That Into You – $27.4M opening (projected) – $90M cume (projected)
AVERAGE OPENING WEEKEND- $23M
AVERAGE DOMESTIC GROSS – $82M

BRAD PITT’S LAST FIVE MOVIES
Babel – $5.5M opening (wide break) – $34.3M cume
Ocean’s Thirteen – $36.1M opening – $117.1M cume
The Assassination of Jesse James – $532K opening (widest weekend) – $3.9M cume
Burn After Reading – $19.1M opening – $60.3M cume
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – $26.8M opening – $117.6M (to-date likely to reach $126M)
AVERAGE OPENING WEEKEND – $17.6M
AVERAGE DOMESTIC GROSS – $68.3M

There’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges problem when comparing these resumes, and Brad certainly has more acclaim with Golden Globe nominations for Babel and Burn After Reading and Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for Benjamin Button, but Jen is no slouch when it comes to selling tickets. She will next be seen starring alongside The Dark Knight’s Aaron Eckhart in Universal’s Traveling due later in the year.

Checking in at #2 is the excellent Luc Besson-produced and Pierre Morel-directed action flick Taken, starring Liam Neeson. The tale of the world’s most “kick-ass” Dad trying to rescue his daughter seized another $6.3M on its second Friday and that should translate to an outstanding $20.3M for a new 10-day cume of $53.36M. That represents a spectacular hold with just an 18% dip from opening weekend.

The surprise third-place finisher is Henry Selick’s Coraline (Focus), based on Neil Gaiman’s Hugo Award winning novel. Riding a tidal wave of positive reviews (88% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) and featuring state-of-the-art 3-D technology, the stop-action animated film has generated $4.5M in opening day sales, and studio estimates put it at $16.33M for the frame. That is well above the number that pre-release tracking suggested.

The film was made for a relatively hefty $60M, and the languid pace of digital conversion at America’s multiplexes means that there are only about 900 screens showing Coraline in 3-D with the other 1,400 or so in traditional 2-D presentation. Given the movie’s dark tone and the limited availability of 3-D, Focus will be thrilled with a $16M start.

The major disappointment of the 3-day is Pink Panther 2 (Sony). The reviews have been horrific (14% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), and Steve Martin must realize that, although he may be cashing a big paycheck, the brilliant Peter Sellers is almost certainly “spinning in his grave.” After a $20.2M opening for the original sub-par remake in 2006, Pink Panther 2 appears to be a dud with a meager $3.4M Friday. The picture is skewing young and got a decent Saturday and Sunday matinee bounce, but the sequel’s opening frame will be about $11M, down a full 45% from Martin’s last go-round as Inspector Clouseau.

The other new wide release is Push (Summit Entertainment), which is in the mold of NBC’s Heroes and the X-Men franchise. Reviews are pretty awful (27% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) and the box office performance equally disappointing. The picture delivered only $3.5M or so on Friday (#5 for the day), and it will stumble to a soft $10.2M according to Summit, #6 for the weekend behind Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony). The under-estimated Kevin James comedy meanwhile, will add another $11M or so over the 3-day for a new cume of $97M.

EXCLUSIVE STEVE MASON EARLY FRIDAY ESTIMATES
1. NEW – He’s Not That Into You (Warner Bros) – $10.5M, $3,307 PTA, $10.5M cume
2. Taken (Fox) – $6.3M, $1,979 PTA, $39.36M cume
3. NEW – Coraline (Focus) – $4.5M, $1,958 PTA, $4.5M cume
4. NEW – Push (Summit) – $3.5M, $1,513 PTA, $3.5M cume
5. NEW – Pink Panther 2 (Sony) – $3.4M, $1,513 PTA, $3.4M cume
6. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) – $2.7M, $852 PTA, $88.7M cume
7. The Uninvited (Paramount) – $2.1M, $896 PTA, $14.07M cume
8. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) – $2.05M, $1,189 PTA, $72.07M cume
9. Gran Torino (Warner Bros) – $2M, $739 PTA, $1156.03M cume
10. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Sony) – $1.15M, $563 PTA, $36.9M cume
10. Hotel For Dogs (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $1.1M, $402 PTA, $50.5M cume
12. New in Town (Lionsgate) – $1.05M, $541 PTA, $9.67M cume

STUDIO ESTIMATES FOR FEBRUARY 6-8
1. NEW – He’s Not That Into You (Warner Bros) – $27.46M, $8,650 PTA, $27.46M cume
2. Taken (Fox) – $20.3M, $6,376 PTA, $53.36M cume
3. NEW – Coraline (Focus) – $16.33M, $7,105 PTA, $16.33M cume
4. NEW – Pink Panther 2 (Sony) – $12M, $3,700 PTA, $12M cume
5. Paul Blart: Mall Cop (Sony) – $11M, $3,471 PTA, $97M cume
6. NEW – Push (Summit) – $10.2M, $4,412 PTA, $10.2M cume
7. Gran Torino (Warner Bros) – $7.42M, $2,743 PTA, $120.28M cume
8. Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight) – $7.4M, $4,292 PTA, $77.42M cume
9. The Uninvited (Paramount) – $6.4M, $2,730 PTA, $18.37M cume
10. Hotel For Dogs (Dreamworks/Paramount) – $5.82M, $2,129 PTA, $55.23M cume
11. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Sony) – $3.9M, $1,910 PTA, $39.65M cume
12. New in Town (Lionsgate) – $3.3M, $1,700 PTA, $11.92M cume

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.