Battle Los Angeles

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. (04/06/2011)

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)

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)

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)

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%. (04/19/2011)