Dramatic sequences, movie cliches cheapen Liebesman’s film
“Battle: Los Angeles” tries its best to come off as “Independence Day” (1996) meets “Black Hawk Down” (2001), but instead it feels more like “Skyline” (2010), only a tad better. The movie introduces itself as a two-hour-long Marine recruiting attempt packed with war movie clichés and unnecessary dramatic sequences. The use of trembling images ruins the action scenes and acts as a distraction from the thrills the movie supposedly presents.
The film opens with Los Angeles in flames and under alien attack. It then goes into flashback mode and introduces its main characters, who possess less depth than Aaron Eckhart’s dimpled chin. The first is Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Eckhart), who turns in his retirement papers and remains tormented by the memories of the men he lost in Iraq. His alien-fighting unit is led by an inexperienced lieutenant (Ramon Rodriguez), who has a pregnant wife. Other squad members include a feisty leatherneck Air Force sergeant (Michelle Rodriguez) and Ne-Yo (yeah, I know, right?).
After the introductions, meteors crash down to Earth, and aliens attack the obligatory cities like Paris, Hong Kong and Los Angeles. The aliens arrive to colonize the humans and harvest all of the water, which they need in order to survive. The audience never gets a clear physical description as to what the aliens look like, except that their weapons are attached to their forearms.
The story to “Battle: Los Angeles” contains some dramatic nuances and unnecessary plot points. For instance, the movie establishes the point that the aliens can only be killed by shooting them in the heart but does absolutely nothing with it. Also, a boy’s father dies after helping the Marines, and Nantz promises to look after his son, which he can’t do because he has to go shoot more aliens. All of the dramatic scenes only prolong the film and fill in between the repetitive scenes of endless, hazardous gunfire. This is the general outline of the film.
Casting clearing was not the biggest concern in the making of this film, including such inexperienced actors like R&B singer Ne-Yo. Out of the cast, Eckhart delivered the most disappointing performance. The thought of Eckhart wasting his God-given acting talent on a raucous excuse for a science-fiction film is utterly depressing. His character even manages to throw in an overly scripted encouraging speech about how Marines never quit.
One of the biggest letdowns of “Battle: Los Angeles” is the biggest nightmare for any action film: the overuse of the shaky camera. Understandably, director Jonathan Liebesman might have tried to give audiences that “part of the action” experience that 3-D so tiresomely offers. However, having a high conception and a rickety camera doesn’t mean you can duplicate the exhilaration of guerrilla warfare. The camera only serves as an annoyance, refusing to give the audience a simple picture of what is happening in some scenes.
Not only does the film lack characterization and drag on, but “Battle: Los Angeles” also feels too borrowed and unoriginal as it contains clichés from both war and science-fiction films. Similar to “Independence Day” (1996), the aliens possess a command center that controls the sky-patrolling machines and needs to be destroyed if the humans can win. This command center, along with the aircraft drones, looks poorly designed, ironically appearing as pieces of junkyard scrap from a high-tech alien race.
“Battle: Los Angeles” is hardly enough to satisfy as a weekend escape; it’s all bang but barely worth the buck. Hardcore action junkies probably won’t feel deprived, but with all the mindless explosions and barrage of bullets, it would have better served as a first-person shooter video game.