Invasión del mundo - Batalla: Los Ángeles

Everyone described this film as BLACK HAWK DOWN meets ALIENS and who am I to contradict public opinion . One thing I didn't notice in the reviews was similarity to the John Wyndham novel The Kraken Wakes . Meteors land in the ocean and very quickly alien incursions attack the coastline . One criticism of Wyndham's criminally underrated novel is that if an alien race was this advanced then there's no reason for them to be hostile down to evolutionary psychology . In simplistic terms a civilization alien or otherwise would have to evolve beyond petty tribalsitic squabbles and pool their resources in to conquering physics and mastering interstellar travel . In other words an advanced civilization should in theory be a non aggressive race not bent on conquest

This is speculation of course because there's no evidence that there's life on any other planet and the novels of John Wyndham are quickly forgotten as the laser bolts fly and the aliens emerge from the sea . This is a pity because I was expecting a bit more mystery and suspense allowing the story to breath before the aliens were revealed . It's still not really a great loss at this point because I was still very impressed by the epic scope and spectacle as the marines fly to Camp Pendleton via helicopter dodging airbursts caused by the aliens . As the action then takes place as a ground war in the ruins of LA I was reminded to a certain extent of BLACK HAWK DOWN . The problem after the initial fighting however is that the scale and scope stops and started reminding me of any Michael Bay film you care to mention

Goodbye epic scope and scale we had when the marines were airborne and hello to close up and elliptic editing done via shaky cam . One can understand director Jonathan Liebesman trying to do a sci-fi blockbuster in a realist style but we've seen too many films with " blink and you'll miss it " type editing and you'd think with the utter contempt that many movie fans hold Michael Bay in you'd think most directors would avoid this style rather than constantly embrace it , but no they still continue as if it's part of their job remit . Would I cynical in thinking in this case it's too disguise the fact that the aliens aren't all convincing if you look at them longer than a nanosecond ? Hmm CGI and blink and you'll miss it editing . You spend tens of millions of dollars on a movie and you don't bother hiring an editor or a screenwriter . Remind me why Hollywood producers live in big mansions with a swimming pool while there's so many people with potential living in poverty ?

This is a the type of film like WORLD WAR Z that constantly gets pumped out by Hollywood where there's a germ of a good idea in there somewhere that blossoms in to a big headache inducing mess that makes for a great trailer but doesn't have any substance to sustain it for two hours . Obviously any idiot can be a Hollywood producer but it takes someone of relative intelligence to analyse if they want to spend money watching films like this at the cinema just because the trailer looked good . I'm glad I didn't spend money on a cinema ticket to watch this

The alien invasion film is certainly nothing original. Recently, and upcoming, I can think of no less than 4 film and TV versions of this basic tale. Battle: Los Angeles doesn't bring anything new, plot wise, to this scenario. In fact, it operates on the thinnest of plot and some very underdeveloped characters. The only somewhat unique aspect, at least for an alien invasion story, is its gritty "you are there" aspect, filmed in a hand-held, jerky, thick of the action style. This isn't revolutionary either, but Battle: Los Angeles does manage to squeeze some momentum out of its running length.

As mentioned above, Battle: Los Angeles' plot can be summed up rather succinctly: Aliens land on Earth throughout the globe, including near Los Angeles. This alien force, operating with ground forces, begins to overrun the various cities they arrive at, and LA is no different. A squad of marines, led by Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhardt) is dispatched to attempt to retrieve possible civilian presence from a Santa Monica police station behind the front lines of the fighting. They encounter heavy resistance, and must find a way back to their forward operating base while keeping the civilians under their protection, and themselves, alive.

Battle: Los Angeles is obviously influenced, visually, by movies such as Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan in the staging of its action. Much of the film is photographed with hand-held camera moves, the focus constantly whipping around, disorienting both the characters and the audience. While the technique is hardly unique, it does work to a degree in Battle: Los Angeles, bringing a different approach to a familiar plot. This isn't about scientists trying to figure out what the aliens want, or politicians wringing their hands about the "big decisions" in the midst of an alien onslaught. Battle: Los Angeles keeps its focus exclusively on the soldiers in the thick of battle, presenting the action in a no-holds barred manner. It is refreshing, at least from that perspective, to see a harder-edged, more realistic take on this material.

On the other hand, Battle: Los Angeles is a bit weak on the character front. The most development is given to Sergeant Nantz, who had just recently returned from a tour in Iraq where lives were lost and many assume he was to blame. This plays into several moments in the film, influencing other characters regarding the decisions he makes during the events of the story. Beyond that, aside from a few obligatory references to someone's relative or background, none of the other characters see much development. Physically, they are different enough to stand out from one another, but they are all mostly blank slates. There isn't complete detachment from the audience, several moments have some resonance emotionally, but not as much as if the filmmakers had taken some time to flesh the people out a bit more.

Battle: Los Angeles also suffers from being a bit overlong, and it's relentless, action oriented approach means that a lot of similar scenes play out over and over again: Marines trapped in combat, things don't look good, a character makes a choice or sacrifice, they manage to subdue their attackers, and then the film moves to the next scene in this same format. There is also little or no development of the alien menace. Snippets of television coverage featuring scientific experts fills in a little of the backstory to them, but it is mostly incidental. However, Battle: Los Angeles is not created in that style, it is about the action going on with the marines in the thick of it, and stays in that mode.

Aaron Eckhardt proves again his ability to sell a character, and he imbues Sergeant Nantz with a vigor and a degree of weariness that you buy into. Most of the other actors do a decent job of making us believe in these people as Marines in the thick of combat. A few recognizable names take roles, including Michele Rodriguez as an Air Force tech who joins up with the Marines and Bridget Moynihan as a civilian they are trying to protect, but neither has much to work with in regards to their characters other than to look tough or scared, respectively.

Battle: Los Angeles is certainly no masterpiece. It doesn't deviate much from the alien invasion template in regards to the broad strokes of its plot, and the style it was filmed in has been pioneered by other films. That being said, the film is engaging enough, and applies its style to a source material in a way that at least gives a different perspective on a familiar narrative framework. That doesn't make for a tremendous film, but not one that is completely in need of avoidance by the filmgoing public.

I feel sometimes that movie reviewers try to use the same scale for all movies, I call it the Schindlers List effect. If its not Schindlers list, you dont rate it high. Thats like judging Pizza against a gourmet meal at a three Michelin star restaurant. Context matters, Pizza can be 10 stars too, when compared to other pizzas. So it is for me with movies.

Which brings us to Battle: Los Angeles, this is a pretty damn good alient invasion movie, certainly more "realistic" than Independence Day (which is also, IMO, a good movie). As someone else said, this is Blackhawk Down with Aliens. Thats a solid description.

And as alien invasion movies go, or military movies go, this one is solid and could stand on its own as either. Take out the Aliens, but in some other conflict and youve still got a good movie.

For the Alien Invasion movie genre this is a real bonus. Normally theyre either too focused on character or the Aliens and the military side of the story is just unrealistic or wrong. This one has a pretty accurate represation of the military, TTPs, etc. The Aliens are anonymous which makes it more interesting to me, no dialogue from the aliens or "from their perspective", theyre just Aliens attacking Earth.

Additionally, on the pure movie front, its got a good cast, good actors, good pacing, good directing, realism (come on dont over think it, Alien Invasion... Aliens) and plenty of action. Not a lot of exposition or time spent talking about whats going on, just Marines fighting aliens.

Definitely would watch if you like that kind of movie. If youre looking for something else, its not for you.

I went into this movie with low expectations after the relative disappointment which was skyline, a film that promised so much from the trailer and delivered far less.

However, im glad to say any misgivings I had were quickly expelled. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't the greatest film ever made, and in many ways it fails to hold a candle to the likes of independence day, which in my opinion is one of the greatest films of its type ever made. It does however, bring a much more up close and personal aspect to an alien invasion. Its more like watching a war filmed in Iraq or something, but that in itself is what separates it from a muddle of recent alien invasion movies that fails to ignite any kind of fire in the mind.

The film moves at an unrelenting pace, with good action sequences and cgi to boot, its predictable at times and the ending fails to come up with something clever or original, but hey ... you cant have everything !!!

First i would like to comment on all the people who gives grades like 1 or 10, try and be a little realistic please. Its freaking annoying that people really cant see how this scale is working. Look at the top 250 and at the bottom 100 .. Now that is amazing movies or just plain horrible movies. If you don't feel you got what you wanted out of this movie then maybe your expectation's was to high. Godfather, Fight Club etc, those are movies that deserve a solid 9 or 10. Diary of a cannibal, Dream Well thats movies that deserve a solid 1 or 2. So stop your pessimistic crap about how bad this movie is and rate 1. No one can ever say that this movie is worse then any on the bottom 100. Ihave personally watched 1000+ movies so i find my self quite knowledge about a good movie or not, and this is not a great movie, but you get solid mindless action movie with decent graphic and a good acting crew. It gets a little long but again, no one cheats you in this movie. No one said to you before you watched it that it was movie of the year. You have a trailer and you build your own expectations. Give it a honest chance and stop judging it like it was a episode "bad" episode of jersey shore or its a 8th wonder of the world. Just judge fair for gods sake.

I would have given it 6.5/10 but i cant half here.

Solid action, decent actors and a decent night entertainment, if you stop believing its the movie of all time, and just go for it.

Judge fair, keep it real.