BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. Not very impressive but enjoyable to watch
A topic thoroughly explored by cinema, at least in almost every way, because filmmakers haven’t had the last word on this issue yet, and previous attempts to deviate from the formula, although few (as is the subgenre itself, which doesn’t grace the screens as often as one might think), have been successful.
This was achieved, for example, by Shyamalan in Signs, where we observe the invasion from the perspective of one family. Or rather, we don’t just observe it, we experience it, because the director completely deprived his story of the typical scale of events and spectacle for this type of film, opting for mystery, tension, and a sense of siege. In fact, one could say that the invasion in his film is merely an addition, a pretext for telling a story about regaining faith. In District 9, Neill Blomkamp, based on his own short film, turned the whole concept upside down and made the cosmic invaders victims, whose ship arrived on our planet basically by accident. Even Cameron’s Avatar essentially relies on the inversion of the invasion scheme; this time it’s humans who come to the planet of the Aliens, not the other way around. Battle: Los Angeles
Battle: Los Angeles seems to be another original approach to the attack of alien invaders on our planet. We’ve seen army clashes with extraterrestrial invaders before, but this time the soldiers were supposed to be the main characters of the movie, thrown right into the middle of the war with an alien civilization. A helicopter on fire with aliens? Awesome! So why did such a promising concept turn into another stereotypical production that leaves behind impressions more fleeting than the smell of popcorn filling the movie theater? One word: the screenplay. It’s not that Battle: Los Angeles knocks you down with a pile of illogicalities, plot holes, and idiocies, making it perfect material for a separate article. The basic problem with Christopher Bertolini’s script is the assumptions of the film as such and how he developed them, or rather, how he didn’t.
What struck me the most and at the same time disappointed me was the aimlessness of the whole movie. Yes, the marines have clearly defined tasks, but the clashes with the aliens are somewhat of a by-product of the mission to enemy territory, rather than the actual goal of the mission. Instead of “Gentlemen, kick some alien a**es!” we have “Go search for civilians, just watch out for the Aliens.” There’s nothing wrong with such a development, of course, but I felt somewhat cheated because the titular Battle: Los Angeles sounds like an unfulfilled promise, and that’s what it is. Only after about (approximately) 80 minutes, when the marines decide to act on their own and switch from defense to offense, does the film come to life with new energy that was sorely lacking from the beginning.
Another problem is the portrayal of the invasion itself. The Alien machines crash-land on Earth in the form of meteors, everything happens quickly and chaotically. So there’s neither room for atmosphere or tension, nor for the shock effect, lacking that necessary “wow!” that accompanied us when monstrous ships filled the sky in Independence Day or when the Tripod emerged from the ground in War of the Worlds. This is why for a considerable part of Battle: Los Angeles, it doesn’t feel like a sci-fi movie about an invasion from space. If you were to replace the Aliens with humans, there would be virtually no difference – the heroes are defending themselves from enemy fire, and we only see brief glimpses of their silhouettes. This situation is not improved by the fact that the invaders have firepower practically equal to humans. Only later does the screenwriter introduce new toys into the game, but the impression of contact with the ALIENS is initially too blurred. I also have serious reservations about the design of the Aliens themselves and the vehicles they use. While something like this would easily pass in “I don’t know which installment of this type of console game anymore,” I expect a little more from a movie. It’s somehow bland, without character and imagination. The effects are also not impressive. Despite a budget over twice that of District 9, the CGI in “Battle: Los Angeles falls short in every respect compared to that production. Just decent work, which is often masked by smoke, shaky camera work, and quick cuts.
Enough criticism, though, because despite a rather long list of complaints, I can’t consider the trip to the cinema unsuccessful. Although Jonathan Liebesman is nothing more than a skilled craftsman, and this film only confirms his status, I can’t blame him for anything, and the guy certainly has skills that the Strause brothers will never acquire. Acting-wise, Eckhardt naturally performs the best, as he’s the only one given more to work with, but the rest of the cast also did quite well, and they are far from the embarrassment that the cast of the unfortunate Skyline presented. The music? Totally from the “I’ve heard this somewhere before” category, but it blends well with the visuals. Some will appreciate the chaotic handheld camera shots, while others will cringe at the mere thought of another movie where you can’t see much; my opinion falls somewhere in the middle.
The screenwriter made a huge mistake right from the start – he threw the viewer into the whirlwind of war only to shoot himself in the foot by reversing the action by 24 hours. Jumping straight into the deep end would certainly have been a bold and original move, but no, they had to go through character development. If you were to make a list of the most common criticisms of Hollywood productions, at the very top would undoubtedly be the paper-thin characters who are walking clichés. Surprisingly, I find that absolutely doesn’t bother me in the case of this film. Sure, it would be great if the group of soldiers consisted of a mix of colorful characters like those from Aliens, Saving Private Ryan, or even the aforementioned Black Hawk Down, but I don’t expect that from a movie so heavily reliant on action like Battle: Los Angeles, nor is it necessary. The issue of rooting for the characters in the face of fighting Aliens can be ensured by a well-chosen cast, so why do I have to watch for a few minutes such schematic, painfully banal scenes, from which I learn that one soldier will be getting married soon, and the other is expecting a child? At the moment when the explosions shake the surroundings, and the air is filled with countless bullets, such, let’s be honest, nonsense ceases to matter. Although it could, as in the case of a soldier struggling with – I guess – post-Iraq trauma, which for some reason was completely omitted later in the film. Only the character of Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhardt) gained a thread of a dramatic past, which – surprise! – will be recalled more than once, there will be forgiveness, tears, and a pathetic speech, but even that could be easily cut out without any harm to the film, and quite the opposite.
The biggest advantage of Battle: Los Angeles is undoubtedly its pace, which – despite the limp screenplay – makes the whole thing so enjoyable to watch. There are, of course, occasional (and one longer) lulls, but when the film kicks into high gear, it races at breakneck speed, displaying commendable dynamism. It also can’t be denied its spectacle, although here too there’s a “but”: I didn’t notice a single scene that really impressed me and that I would like to see again. In fact, that’s the whole film, to be watched with popcorn in hand and forgotten the next day.
Words by Piotr Miskiewicz.
EDITORIAL team