Movie Review: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
A live action video game that's enjoyable for what it is
Photo: Columbia Pictures
With Battle: Los Angeles screenwriter Christopher Bertolini (The General's Daughter) and director Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) have created a video game of a war film by mashing together Black Hawk Down and District 9 with an invasion to match War of the Worlds. Does that mean it's good? I enjoyed it for what it was, but I wouldn't necessarily call it good.
The cast includes Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Peña, Bridget Moynahan, Ne-Yo, Taylor Handley, Joey King, Ramon Rodriguez and Cory Hardrict. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Battle: Los Angeles" is a Columbia Pictures release, directed by Jonathan Liebesman and is rated PG-13 for sustained and intense sequences of war violence and destruction, and for language. The running time is 1 hour 56 minutes.
The first 15 minutes are about as lazily cliche as they come as we're introduced to the group of marines that will guide us through the 90 minutes that are to follow. One is retiring from the Marines after 20 years of service, another is about to get married, another has a pregnant wife, another just lost his brother in combat, another has a sister in Nigeria and another appears to be suffering from some sort of PTSD. Shortly after the pieces are placed on the board and the game begins.
Meteors begin falling from the sky. Aliens emerge from the ocean and begin annihilating those sunbathing on the beach. The military has declared "Threatcon Delta" as Los Angeles is turned into a war zone. Rubble rains down on the greying and smokey landscape. Battle: Los Angeles is a sea of concrete, explosions and gunfire. The action is fast, furious and increasingly numbing.
Don't expect to find character attachment or much of a story outside of the idea the world is under attack and a team of soldiers are the last defense against it. The comparison to today's video games is an easy one, just think "Call of Duty" meets "Gears of War".
Is all of this a bad thing? For many, maybe. For me it served as a satisfying diversion. Looking back at the three comparisons I made above, I can't exactly find much reason to return to watch Black Hawk Down, District 9 or War of the Worlds all that often, but they were all three satisfying features the first time through. The same can be said for Battle: Los Angeles, it's just a matter of knowing what you're going into. The trailers, for example, are a good start.
Explosions occur. Loud noises. Gunfire. Aliens and destruction. As opposed to a first person cam, Liebesman flips it around and gives us a gun barrel cam aimed back at a soldier as he scans for an extraterrestrial in his midst. The rest is filled with handheld camerawork as shaky as we've seen in most actioners since Paul Greengrass and Oliver Wood popularized it in 2004 with The Bourne Supremacy. Of course, the subtlety Greengrass and Wood employed is absent here and cinematographer Lukas Ettlin even gets a bit melodramatic with his movements.
From a filmmaking perspective, none of the camerawork really impressed me. What did impress me was the sound design, which was truly top notch and the one thing that stood out in the trailers. The acting? Well, there are actors involved but acting is secondary here as the story moves from one destructive set piece to another with an eye on how to destroy everything in sight before moving to the next location.
On top of the comparisons I've made, I don't think a comparison to Michael Bay's Transformers is out of the question. Battle: Los Angeles is a more enjoyable film, but it is just as destructive, loud and senseless. The difference, I would say, is the action in Battle: Los Angeles forwards the film's momentum whereas the action in Transformers is a distraction from the film's lack of momentum.
It's hard to say if this is a film that deserves your money. Either a viewing at home or one in a theater will likely cause the same reaction, and I have a feeling if you're reading this review you're likely to see it now or later so why not give it a spin in theaters? Just try and find one with the best sound system and you should be golden.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I think I'll enjoy it for what it is, but that first trailer is still one of the best in recent years. Just a piece of art, for some time it gave me much more hope in this film than I have now.
Same as Nick, this is how I feel too, on everything he said, they had top notch trailers that really sold the film well and the music and sound took them really, really far: Having Jóhann Jóhannsson' "The Suns Gone Dim And The Sky's Turned Black" was an astounding choice for music in the trailer, I hope they used it somewhere in the film..
I was surprised to hear that this is going under a different title here – World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles, and not translated either. I find it really strange. What's the point?
At least the aliens in Independance Day had a plan, and were only foiled because they were forced to use the Windows operating system, like everyone else in the galaxy. But showing up and just shooting people? Wouldn't hitting the water supply, and power grid, gas stations, and food distribution warehouses kill a lot more people?
The water supply actually plays into their plan.
I quite enjoyed it as an action flick. It pretty much gives you what it promises n the box. It wasn't intensely deep, it wasn't intensely surprising, or even very original, however I found it a rather satisfying experience that was low on cheese and heavy on the boom. I did find that I cared about what happened to the characters without feeling like I was overly manipulated (like a Michael Bay film, say), and in a movie like this that's a good thing. If you're interested, go see it. I doubt you'll be too disappointed.
I gotta say, Im shocked at the horrible reviews this is getting. I had a hell of a good time watching this tonight, as did the 10 or so people who went with me. Was it an amazing movie? No way. But its a very fun, albeit quite dumb action flick. It wasnt nearly as cheesy as I was expecting either. IT was fairly intense and had some pretty awesome action scenes. Well worth my 10 bucks.
I must admit I enjoyed this film, it adheres to nearly all the stereotypes and cliches you could imagine (never say Its going to be alright or see you soon before someone gets on a helicopter), it is played very straight but I enjoyed it.
Character wise it is a dud which makes me wonder why it needed such an extensive build up you barely make a connection with anyone besides Eckhart's character. I can barely remember any of the marines names.
I think the use of shaky-cam was a bit much but it doesn't bother me as much as it does others.
Still, its better than Skyline (phew!)
Actually, I hated this film. I'm just gonna get that out the way now. Utterly hated it.
Even anticipating cardboard plotting, zero characterisation and non-existent performances (which are all duly present) this is just abysmally done. The only thing I discovered during the offensive noise pollution throughout was that I could actually shut my eyes and tune it all out to get a bit of a rest in the darkened theatre.
Even though the exact same things can be said about something like 2012 at least that flick has a sense of how stupid it is, and also actually has some money effects shots and sequences. Clearly, Battle: LA didn't even have the budget to do anything more than a handful of cityscape matte shots and the rest is so shakily close up it could have been filmed anywhere. Add in cheesy jingoism that would make Bill Pullman blush, some lunkheaded metaphors and imagery and you have a film I was angry I paid to watch.
Somehow, the friend I went with really enjoyed it but I'd have walked after about 30 minutes. I don't like making someone else leave a movie they want to see (I only walkout if everyone is in agreement) and that's the only reason I stayed.
I'm also probably in the minority since in my screening this was actually applauded by a few members of the audience so I'm getting it all off my chest now so I don't have to talk about this again at tomorrow's 'What I watched, what you watched' run-through.
I hope it tanks in it's second weekend.
I should add that based on all the adverts and promos, I did want to see the film and didn't think I would be this pissed after seeing it.
I wasn't dragged to it…………I just hated it once I was in.
Awwwwww sorry that YOU didnt get the movie that YOU wanted to see, sorry that YOU set YOUR expectations so high for a hollywood film, go join Ebert somewhere to suck thumbs together dude.
Oh please………..do you just want everyone to fawn over whatever YOU like as well?
I like plenty of films that others would slate. It's part and parcel of watching films.
Grow up and get a clue.
Enjoyable? More like laughable…this movie sucks in all ways. This movie ripped off just about everything from "Independence Day" to "District 9" right down to "Cloverfield" and "Skyline" and in the worse possible way! The graphics and alien design are by far the worst i've seen in a major motion picture as they made this to be.