Battle Los Angeles

It’s incredibly how Liebesman handled this project. With a relatively small budget, he created a monumental-looking (title, trailer, posters) and yet very modest sci-fi film, full of very impressive visual effects and absolutely thrilling action (shots and panoramic camera sweeps like Michael Bay). The protagonists may not be as cool as in other films, but that's not the main focus here. In essence, it's a mix of all possible films, and everyone takes exactly as much of their own portion as they want. It has pathos, emotions, action, excellent sound design, quotes, likeable actors, heroism – basically everything we expect from this kind of movie. It lacks a budget for an even bigger inferno, but the director knew exactly what he was doing. With a bigger budget, it wouldn't be this cute winking at the film world, but a proper mess. PS: The best aliens in terms of philosophy and execution still remain those from Independence Day. (06/20/2011)

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... (03/07/2011)

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 :-) (03/10/2011)

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. (05/22/2011)

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% (06/29/2013)