Nick Nunziata: If you would have told me fifteen years ago that we’d be inundated with alien invasion movies loaded with talent and treated with A-List technical treatments I’d have hugged you and thanked you for the news. I’d drive a little more careful. Be a little more discerning in my food choices. That’s a future I could get behind. One worth getting excited for. In some respects it still is, but it’s become very hard to experience an alien invasion film with the same open mind and interest in the wake of so many in recent memory.
Battle: LA is a well made movie. It’s not overly dumb. It has some good actors doing good work and a director who has obviously boned up on a lot of Ridley Scott movies, a lot of Michael Bay movies, and Neil Blomkamp’s exceptional District 9. It looks right and sounds right but like so many aliens in so many movies it feels sort of like a facsimile rather than its own living and breathing thing.
Renn Brown: Unfortunately there are a lot of elements hamstringing Battle: LA from being certifiably “great,” but I’ve got no problem calling it “good,” and whether or not it ends up being the most memorable of the in-progress wave of new alien flicks, it’s definitely a big screen experience worth having. From where I sit, this is a film with a lot of sophisticated action, a strong conceptual approach, and a whole lot of dodgy character and thematic work in-between.
The set-up to Battle: LA is as simple as an invasion movie gets: aliens land and unleash a wave of destruction on the major cities of earth, while the various armed forces scramble to combat them. Nothing about the logline even approaches originality, and yet Battle: LA does approaches this well versed material from a number of fresh and sometimes shockingly unique perspectives. The most important point of divergence from other such films is that Battle never leaves the perspective of the specific group of marines it follows- there are no cut-aways to the president with his cabinet, or teases of the alien’s evil scheme, or what have you. It’s a down-and-dirty, street level view of the alien invasion from the point of view of men bound by duty and orders to get in the thick of the mess, with the only views of the outside world or other cities coming through brief glimpses on television news reports.
Before hopping into the aesthetic novelty of the film, it’s also worth mentioning that it goes for an ambitious, if not wholly successful structure of character introductions that weave into the larger set-up of the film, and attempts to make you genuinely care about a group of marines, specifically centered around Aaron Eckhart’s character Sgt. Michael Nantz. Each of the marines that we’ll be sticking with for the film get their own brief scene of introduction, but from there more complicated relationships are established as they gear up and learn about the invasion. Matched with the film’s willingness to mercilessly whack characters that you thought might at least stick around to the third act, it almost works. Some of the cheesiest dialogue, line delivery and melodramatic posturing in recent memory makes a lot of that effort fall flat, but the effort is there. Still, it’s not nearly successful as the treatment of the alien enemy.
Nick: See, I didn’t like the aliens at all. Everything about them felt familiar. There was nothing to make more than things to be shot and because there’s really not a lot going on with them it’s hard to get invested. Mindless hordes work if there’s a nice variety of designs and the illusion of characteristics and traits. Starship Troopers, for example. Here it’s Black UFO Down with well executed but extremely boring combatants on both side of the skirmish.
And a camera that never sits still for more than a few frames.
Renn: Well I don’t think there’s going to be any convincing anyone who’s left unstimulated by the aliens and their equipment to suddenly be interested, but their physical designs and technology intrigued me more than usual. None of it is by any means revolutionary but the combustion-powered ships and projectile-based weapons are an interesting diversion from the typical laser and force-fields of most film’s alien invaders. Of course, it’s all geared towards turning this into a very straightforward Black Hawk Down-styled urban combat film that just happens to have aliens and worldwide destruction as a backdrop.
The aliens are never characterized much, and toning down the alien nature of the aliens may see counter-intuitive, but I found it refreshing. What we have are marines fighting against their own ignorance of the enemy, which pays off in my favorite scene of the movie, which takes places when they finally get their hands on a fallen extraterrestrial foe. It’s a gooey, gory scene that showcase that this production really was interested in going practical and visceral when the opportunity struck.
All of that said, such low-key aliens and exceedingly cheesy thematic work means that the film doesn’t have much chance of rising above being a competent action flick. It doesn’t, even though it is.
Nick: I liked that scene for its viscera but the whole setup, and I can’t imagine it’s a spoiler, is about finding a weakness in their adversary. Which is fine except the creatures are densely protected and even knowing whatever physical shortcomings they may have shouldn’t make much of a difference. These creatures have every edge in battle and that’s the one thing that helps the movie have the concussive impact it needs in the early scenes. Once the aliens become cans to knock over on the way to the objective it’s hard to stay interested.
It’s hard to stay interested for a lot of reasons. Though Eckhart tries his damndest and there are attempts to give the soldiers personalities, it just feels like someone very much wanted to do a mash-up of Ridley Scott and Michael Bay movies.
Renn: It definitely seems geared towards pleasing the fans of modern war video games, though I found it’s frenetic shakycam much more watchable and coherent than that shit usually is. This is as good a time as any to mention that I spent some time on the set of this movie (Part 1, Part 2), and when I saw the persistence of hand-held camera work, I knew right away this thing would be unwatchable without a good editor. Fortunately the film makes up for its shakiness with measured picture cutting- I typically find myself pretty sensitive to hyper-cut shaky messes, and I had no problem following each moment, scene, and shot in Battle. No moment of action really rings out memorably though, which further cements to me that this will be a nice palette cleansing appetizer for the bigger summer fare, and little more.
I really like Eckhart and I know for a fact that his heart was in this one, but man does he push the tortured, macho-posturing solider bit too far several times. He still manages to be a warm presence that centers everything, but there’s a climactic scene where he bears his soul and it’s almost painful. There’s some really good work in the middle as he figures out his place in the new unit, but his innate likability just isn’t enough to balance out the cheese.
Nick: Don’t get me wrong, the visual storytelling was fine. The editing was fine. I knew who was who most of the time and the craft on hand in almost every instance is excellent. The FX are very good. It just feels like an imposter. Frankly I think we’ve had enough of this for a while. No one will be able to do a large-scale alien invasion movie and it not feel like a retread. It needs to simmer a while until a new approach is taken. Battle: LA‘s biggest fault is its blandness. It’s desperate for an identity of its own, or worse yet it isn’t.
It’s not bad. I don’t even dislike it. I just find nothing of note to make it a contributor to the subgenre, just an opportunist.
That said, the fact this is a bloodless film hurts it. A lot, actually. This should have been an R and not because it’s the fanboy thing to say.
Renn: I would trade the film’s potential blood and guts for dramatic teeth any day, but the bloodlessness certainly keeps this from being anything beyond clean Hollywood action, regardless of all the dust and rubble.
Ultimately the film’s inability to stick the landing with it’s approach to character development, and a third act that treads too far into video game-plotting tropes makes it hard to defend as anything particularly notable. I’ll maintain though, that the alien aesthetic, hints of clever character work, and the strictly narrow perspective on the events of the film are unique enough to indicate that director Jonathan Liebesman and company were working with genuine passion. The benefit of that passion shows as Battle: LA captures a truly unique vision of alien invasion, filled with seriously gritty, hardcore action. That’s the good, and I’ll stand behind it confidently. The problem though is that all of the elements beyond that offer little that will stick with you, or even worse, drag the film down. The parts, the sum… none of it falls into place well enough to make this special, even if it’s not a bad excuse to get back to the multiplex and prime yourself for the summer movie season.
Nick: It’s a decent diversion but there’s nothing new here and though technically it’s a new IP rather than a sequel or remake, it really isn’t new at all. Entertaining? I suppose, but it really is Black Hawk Down meets District 9 sprinkled with Michael Bay dust. Can’t hate it. Can’t love it.
Renn
Rating: 




Out of a Possible 5 Stars
Nick
Rating: 




Out of a Possible 5 Stars









Great reviews guys. I felt the same about the movie. It had its moments with the visuals and action, but the story was so generic and the over machoness of the Marines got annoying really fast.
One weird thing is that I am usually ALL about the R rating and with this one, I was pretty content. I would always say an R rating is better, but I didn’t feel like this one would have really benefited from it.
I agree that I was disappointed when it wasn’t an R but after watching it I don’t think more gore would have made it better. What this film really needed was a better script and some more entertaining characters. They were so cliche it was painful. The virgin, the married guy, the grizzled misunderstood veteran etc. Come on we can do better than that.
I do think that the film really overcame its problems. I really enjoyed it even though the dialogue and characters were terrible.
I have to thank Nick for not plagiarizing like most film critics. So Nick, thank you for not talking about the “cheesiest dialogue” committed to a film in the last year. Because to be honest, it wasn’t all that bad. Yet, if you survey through most of the reviews of Battle: LA that what you will find. Furthermore, you will see that most of the bad dialogue comments are attributed to Eckhart’s character. I just watched this movie. His character, by far, has the best dialogue in the film. Rodriguez’s character, on the other hand, did not fare so well. Sorry for the rant, but I am getting sick of hearing the majority of film critics repeating the same exact criticisms of a film ad nauseum.
The reason why so many critics are complaining about the cheesy dialogue is because it’s a valid criticism. The dialogue IS cheesy and it IS fucking terrible. This is dialogue straight out of Pearl Harbor or Armageddon. It’s full of cliches and dishonest emotion. Almost every speech is predictable pap that you’ve heard in several other films like this. Also, most of criticism is aimed at Eckhart mainly because he gets the most dialogue and the majority of the clunky speeches. Defend the film if you like it. I’m not going to slam you for it. Just don’t rant about critics voicing the same complaints and implying they’re just falling in line like sheep. I hadn’t read any reviews before I saw the film and my biggest problem (one of, at least) as I left the theater, was that awful, cheesy dialogue. I came up with that complaint all on my own.
Good for you, and I’m sure a lot of people do. I am not defending the dialogue or the emotions in this film. I am attacking the critics who are sheep. And it isn’t just this film, it is every film. They repeat the same arguments and use very similar, if not verbatim, phrases. It is dishonest, and frankly annoying.
I love that you think every critic has a little party where they trade reviews and can copy each others work (before they all go to press on the same day) … nation-wide critics say the same thing because they are valid criticisms, and it struck them all the same way, from coast to coast.
Also, as a side note, I feel Renn clearly gave this film a break since he had done the set visits… Hey i don’t fault him, its only natural when youve been there and seen it, Ive done it myself on stuff I’ve worked on… But try to get a more unbiased reviewer next time.
For example, to say the action was easy to follow at all times is a joke … It was for the most part, I agree, but (SPOILER) the opening ambush near the houses was anything but easy to follow (END SPOILER) … Also, IMO it would have been more effective in my mind to put a scene like that near the end, or just not in the beginning … it felt awkward to have that happen in the beginning, and while i get the concept of the abnormal battle-ground, and how that should have been affective, it just felt strange, and certainly not impressive in the ways they wanted.
I don’t think they get together and trade reviews and I never said such. Plus, I’m pretty sure most critics don’t release their reviews at the same time or day for that matter.
All the actors I interviewed actually said they decided to do the film because of how the aliens were portrayed. Interesting, the vivisection scene was certainly something new to me, watching them pull apart an alien with their bare hands and K-Bars was fun for this jarhead.
Just watched this. Decent, not great. Maybe about a 3 out of 5, but without Michelle Rodriguez it would jump up at least half a star.