Directed by:
Jonathan LiebesmanScreenplay:
Christopher BertoliniCinematography:
Lukas EttlinComposer:
Brian TylerCast:
Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan, Michael Peña, Ne-Yo, Noel Fisher, Susie Abromeit, Joey King, Jim Parrack, Lucas Till, Cory Hardrict (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
For years, there have been documented cases of UFO sightings around the world - Buenos Aires, Seoul, France, Germany, China. But in 2011, what were once just sightings will become a terrifying reality when Earth is attacked by unknown forces. As people everywhere watch the world's greatest cities fall, Los Angeles becomes the last stand for mankind in a battle no one expected. It's up to a Marine Staff sergeant (Aaron Eckhart) and his new platoon to draw a line in the sand as they take on an enemy unlike any they've ever encountered before. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (12)
Reviews (11)
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 :-)
()
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.
()
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%
()
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.
()
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%.
()
Ads