Skip to main content

If you could just tell me what those eyes have seen.

Alita: Battle Angel
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Robert Rodriguez’ film of James Cameron’s at-one-stage-planned film of Yukito Kishiro’s manga Gunnm on the one hand doesn’t feel overly like a Rodriguez film, in that it’s quite polished, so certainly not of the sort he’s been making of late – definitely a plus – but on the other, it doesn’t feel particularly like a Jimbo flick either. What it does well, it mostly does very well – the action, despite being as thoroughly steeped in CGI as Avatar – but many of its other elements, from plotting to character to romance, are patchy or generic at best. Despite that, there’s something likeable about the whole ludicrously expensive enterprise that is Alita: Battle Angel, a willingness to be its own kind of distinctive misfit misfire.

Generally, one should start with the plot, but Alita leads with the eyes. Rightly so? I don’t know. There are some odd undertones, or perhaps they’re just overtones, to the whole conception of Alita, a teenage killbot designed to look like a doe-eyed child, in imitation of the predominant manga style, who is then furnished with the name and frame of a cyber-surgeon’s adolescent daughter (she’s named after his cat in the original). It isn’t until much later that Alita is given a fuller figure (which means breasts, pretty much), and while one might read various thematic reasonings for this – she initially sees this new twenty-sixth century world as through a child’s eyes – the aesthetic choices can’t help but feel dubious (her romantic interest has restraint enough to plant a kiss on her only when she has been physically enhanced). It isn’t enough just to blame Mars, or whoever designed the manga.

So the plot, then. Alita’s process of self-discovery is engaging stuff, playing into the destiny-foretold trope, and the discovery of her skill set (Panzer Kunst, the new Gun-Katana?) is envisaged with due air-punching triumphalism. Those who aren’t Alita – such as Jennifer Connelly’s Chiren and Keean Johnson’s Hugo – are invariably set on escaping the third world squalor of the Iron City for up-top Zalem (basically Elysium, excepting that we don’t get to see it), either by doing what big cheese Nova asks for or attempting to win the cyborg rollerball-derivative game of Motorball. A consequence of this is some rather awkward plot mechanics driving the third act, whereby Alita, rather than going to confront Nova as we might expect – who was, after all, her nemesis three hundred years earlier – enters a Motorball tournament in order to get Hugo, with whom she is besotted, his dream ticket to Zalem. The stakes are thus raised in the wrong direction – we’re asked to care for Hugo’s fate, a character so clumsily devised that he announces his resignation from the criminal life in a manner leading directly to his former partner’s death – no matter how involving the subsequent altercations may be.

Compounding this is that Alita’s love interest is a complete drip, so there’s nothing to invest in between them, particularly problematic when their tragic love story – à la Titanic – is supposed to be the key to the movie. Admittedly, what appears to be an attempt to put Alita and Hugo on the same physical-emotional level, when he has his head chopped off and placed on a robot body (there’s absolutely no effort to address the ramifications of the loss of one’s essential biology here, but let’s face it, even Robocop shied away from that in its sequels), is undercut when he plunges to his doom during a reckless climb towards Zalem. But it’s kind of risible, rather than impacting.

Other performances work better, although none could be said to fulfil their potential. Rose Salazar imbues Alita with a personality beyond the more overt distractions. Connelly isn’t thrown enough to make Chiren a rounded character, but she nevertheless conveys inner conflict. Mahershala Ali is a Matrix Reloaded outfit in search of intriguing villainy, but at least he looks cool, and the Nova mind-control element is the closest the picture comes to expressing the lurking potential for the surrender of one’s faculties that comes with invasive technology. Christophe Waltz is sympathetic as Alita’s surrogate father, and fares better than he has in many a Hollywood movie lately. I confess to having failed to recognise Jackie Earle Haley or Michelle Rodriguez or Casper Van Dien. And then there’s big villain Nova (Edward Norton, but virtually unrecognisable and lacking any of his usual edge, possibly because he doesn’t get to do anything, and now won’t next time either).

The future world is rendered through a mixture of immersive and not-so immersive CGI (whatever Rodriguez says about physical sets, he’s ultimately embracing the same whirl of pixels he always does, only considerably more professionally rendered ones this time); even Alita varies in terms of how real she seems, such that at times, we are simply looking at an all CGI environment with an obviously big-eyed CGI protagonist (the Mars flashbacks, with the numerous big-eyed Berserkers, in particular). The various cyborg constructions are often highly effective, particularly Ed Skrein’s Zapan and Jeff Fahey’s McTeague (plus his robot dogs), but the more elaborate their actions and capabilities, the less congruous they become.

One might suggest both plot and effects are curiously reflective of each other – a mixture of the engrossing and ungainly – in which case, the movie proceeds in like manner all the way to its non-conclusion, deciding to throw multiple potential climaxes at us that, wearisomely, aren’t actual climaxes; indeed, we finish at the point where most movies decide they’re going to confront the main villain, because this is the first in a planned series that simply is not going to come to pass (no way it makes enough to break even, not with a $200m budget).

I’m all for grand visions and SF going way out there, but Alita: Battle Angel is a mass of conflicting impulses, Rodriguez’ B-movie sensibilities adorning an A-movie production with results that are both impressive and cheesy. It doesn’t deserve to be labelled a turkey or flounder as a complete flop, but it’s in no danger of persuading you to fully invest in the proceedings, since there’s no attempt to dig into the material, beyond the immediate spectacle and the hero’s quest. As a consequence, Rodriguez’ movie feels rather inessential, despite the extravagance furnished on it.

And yet, it is worth seeing – this is one of the few Real 3D pictures out this year, and Cameron is still the format’s champion, if nothing else – even if the content is rather caught in a conceptual bubble twenty years past (unsurprising, as Gunm first appeared in 1990). In that sense, although much more appealing, it’s in much the same boat as Ghost in the Shell; when its live action version finally arrived, its moment had long-since passed (and you can better Warner Bros will stillmake their forever-languishing-in-development-hell Akira at some point). As far as Alita going belly up is concerned, though, I guess the upside is that it can hardly matter to Fox now they’re going to be Disney’s problem.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.