Battle Los Angeles

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)

Haters gonna hate, although in terms of this film, I find the amount of hateful flame quite misguided. Regarding the combination of a war film with an alien invasion, I can think of half a dozen directors who could distill this into the ultimate genre crossover, and yet I still find relative satisfaction with this film. Liebesman drains the budget in the right direction, i.e., with great special effects and the impressive set design of the "American Mogadishu." Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough talent to function in more than just the field of quality craft. In the deluge of pathos, I searched in vain for stronger characters to give it more personal moments, to lighten it up with the occasional catchphrase, and if they did shout, to do so in grandiose style. Liebesman is just skimming the surface of all this but no one is fully into it. Instead, he lets the unit proceed according to the laws of video games until the final fireworks display, preceded by resisting an onslaught for three minutes. Who cares that it’s not logical? I’m giving it a better 3 stars, but after it's pulled from the movie theaters, no one is going to remember it. (07/04/2011)

I am not the target audience and I already knew what I was getting into with this film, so I was not disappointed in any way. However, I will not give it a higher rating just because of that. The Cold War ended, and so it was necessary to find a new target and a worthy opponent for the American marines who could resist them for at least a few hours. It is not so much because it is pathetic, pro-American, and who knows what else, it is simply because it is too dull, monotonous, and predictable for me. As a teenager, I would have definitely added a star, but I stand by my review. Overall impression: 25%. (19/04/2011)

It's propaganda. Join the U.S. Marines because they're the best men on the planet and John Wayne is proud of them. World Invasion is a guilty pleasure. Despite the idiotic screenplay which is full of pathos, there are some damn spectacular action sequences, explosions, shootings and footage of a beautifully broken Los Angeles. A comparison with Crysis would be spot on. All it’s missing is a nanosuit. Aaron Eckhart as "Mr. Staff Sergeant" is the kind of military Jesus with a human face who makes the hardest of decisions and is seen as "heroic". The other soldiers are here to die (for him) or to follow him into one last battle. Yes, it’s that much of a cliché. But that doesn't matter (it's actually an incredible source of fun that keeps you smiling nearly all the way through), on top of that everything looks and sounds so good - Bryan Tyler creates a very nice soundtrack behind the heroic babbling and machine gun fire. "You'll be surfing soon, Simmons." (26/03/2011)

A guilty pleasure with shooting, concrete, smoke, shooting, metal, explosions, more shooting ... and all of that over and over again. A spectacular “war of machines” in the destroyed dusty streets of L.A. Though it’s not elegant and lofty in Michael Bay’s fashion, Battle: Los Angeles is realistically gritty. The demented dialogue and hardcore pathos do not degrade the film, but give it a detached, fun dimension reminiscent of Starship Troopers. The question is whether that is intentional. Anyway, Jonathan Liebesman turns out to be a decent action director. And this is a movie I dreamed about when I was fourteen and had just watched Terminator 2 :-) (10/03/2011)