Battle Los Angeles

The rate of use of the word civilian greatly exceeds the rate of fire. In fact, it is used to liberally that I started thinking that they were trying to make it the most universal expression in modern English - the mind boggles at all the places where creators wanted to slip in their darned civilian. So at least it made them happy, even if they couldn’t do the same for the audience. A movie with civilian (read spoiled) shaky shots where even civilians (read boars) are lost for words. (22/05/2011)

A grandiose contribution to the giant weird films about capitalist realism, covered with a very sparse "docu-camera" veil and a dynamic war action ala Black Hawk Down. Except for the occasionally successful Scott / Bigelow thefts, Liebesman has completely failed - the film is absolutely dysfunctional, uninteresting, completely devoid of emotion and literally overflowing with hellish dialogues that stick repulsively in the chosen pseudo-authentic tone of storytelling (... the U.S. didn't sponsor the film. Marine Corps by chance?). Sometimes the visual (repulsive digital characters) creaks a lot, but it disappears in the cacophony of all the components. A movie with no balls, no rhyme, no reason, no magic. Perfect filling of the epic fail box. Did anyone even read the script before they approved the budget? P.S. For nitpickers... Capitalist realism is not my idea, but a commonly used term - it really works for propaganda films such as Independence Day or Battle Los Angeles (threats to democratic values by primitive destructive force from the unknown, military leaders or politicians who lead the collective unwaveringly to victory...) Ideology lives long and blissfully... (07/03/2011)

Black Hawk Down meets District 9 and Independence Day. A great cliché lurks around every corner. A group of soldiers (the commander "with a past", his white, black and yellow men, who also of course include a female pilot who "happens" to know a lot, and of course a few adult and child civilians) are fighting with aliens who resemble mechanical Predators with the intelligence of inmates of an institute for space idiots. It is done very effectively, but unfortunately in a completely undramatic and empty way. Because of the stupid script, I didn't believe in the characters at all. A big mistake and a shame all in one. That said, certain scenes are really good, it just needed to be more original and steal less from other films. That gets it two and a half mediocre stars. (08/04/2011)

Another shining proof that only perfect visual effects and bombastic action can't provide enough for a whole film. Battle Los Angeles is nothing more than a cold parade of loud explosions, falling buildings and moronic dialogue lacking a coherent script or even a hint of human emotion to give the action on screen some authenticity. Liebesman may handle the action with bravado, but an elite director should at least be able make a juicy and medium-rare steak out of the premise, and not just throw a slab of raw and cold meat at the viewer (anyone who's seen Black Hawk Down knows what I'm talking about)... 50% (29/06/2013)

Wow! A film where hostile aliens invade earth is a fan of those who want to defend it (the American army)? Who would have said? I understand that not everybody will like Battle Los Angeles, it’s far from a great film, but that several reviews will say that it’s an almost unwatchable epic fail... Really? It might be so for those whose ideology makes them prefer a film that relativises the evils committed by Islamic terrorists over one that celebrates the efforts of the American army. Battle Los Angeles is a very well made, but fairly stupidly written action film, which is the best possible result if you’ve come to terms with the fact this won’t be any new smart science fiction classic. The film is unbearably “American” in only three scenes, but that’s more than compensated by all the cool moments. To relax at the cinema? Ideal! 8/10 PS: Everyone (including Sony) is comparing Battle Los Angeles to other films, so: Independence Day: BLA is more realistic, dirty and, fortunately, without humour, and a little less pathetic. Cloverfield: Even though BLA isn’t shot with hand-held cameras, the action scenes give the impression that the cameraman is right there, and the monsters are shown as if by the way. Black Hawk Down: I related to the soldiers in both films in a similar way: very little. The action is just as realistic, but in BLA, unlike BHD, it didn’t bore me in the end thanks to – I admit – the more interesting enemies. 2012: BLA is a thousand times more compelling that Emmerich’s latest attempt at catastrophe. Skyline: The low-budget flick by the Straus brothers is worse in every aspect (and in some, like the direction, much worse), with the exception of the monster design. District 9: Blomkamp’s début is much smarter, but the craftsmanship is at the same level. Besides, whereas BLA is silly from the get go, District 9 becomes silly in the second half, which makes it inconsistent. Starship Troopers: The propaganda in BLA is about 5% of the “theoretically serious” Starship Troopers. (10/03/2011)