Battle Los Angeles (Liebesman, 2011)

Last updated on: December 25, 2014 at 10:52 pm by Kenneth R. Morefield

Battle Los Angeles (Liebesman, 2011) 2014-12-25T22:52:46-05:00 Kenneth R. Morefield

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To colon or not to colon?

The title credits of Battle Los Angeles, which I always thought were the ultimate authority in such matters, does not have the colon.

That is about the most productive contribution that I can make to the critical engagement of this film, which struck me as tailor made for audiences who loved Starship Troopers but wished it had been a little more violent and not bogged down with so much character development.

If that strikes you as a bit too snarky, think of Battle Los Angeles as a remake of Independence Day but with the emotional palette of Restrepo. The marines may not be shell shocked by the end, but I was feeling pretty numb.

The characters other than Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) all seemed pretty interchangeable, and thirty minutes after the film was over, I doubt I would have made a passing grade for a test that made me match their names with their pictures. Nantz himself has a caricature of a back story. Plagued by guilt for losing men under command, he must deal both with insubordinate marines who mouth off more than sullen teenagers (did these guys not have drill sergeants in basic training?) and a top-of-his-class-but-useless-in-the-real-word lieutenant.

After a perfunctory and half-hearted prologue establishing the people the marines are supposedly fighting for, the film dives into combat and pretty much forgets all of them. Maybe there was a hard truth in some version of that telling, that the reality of combat is that it quickly becomes the extent of your existence. Or maybe writing a scene where two human beings actually talk to each other is harder than choreographing a hundred explosions.

The shorthand visual or thematic references to other, better movies are too numerous to count and too obvious to have much fun enumerating. I guess one shouldn’t be too surprised at going to a film entitled “Battle” and finding it generic. That said, there is something straightforward about the way the film announces its genericness and kind of revels in it. While the writing is wretched, I can’t even really say that its technically incompetent, but….

In the service of what?

I don’t mean that in any ideological sense. When the preview audience around me cheered it had more to do with the freedom, found only these days in films with nameless aliens and historical Nazis as enemies, to be unilaterally and unambiguously on one side of a divide. I’m just saying I don’t see the entertainment value here no matter how hard I squint. It’s not that all movies have to be fun. There can be an entertainment value in a perceptive examination of serious themes, in technical excellence, in pathos, in probing art that deals with unpleasant things. I’m just not sure that any of those categories apply here.

Director Jonathan Liebesman’s first two major film credits were Darkness Falls and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (full disclosure: I’ve seen neither), and I think in many ways Battle Los Angeles is a military action frame around what is ultimately a horror/monster picture. Not that it is particularly graphic–it stays on the PG-13 side by keeping the ratio of violence to property versus violence to people at about 99.99 to 00.01–but it is so unimaginative, so literal, so very, very mechanical.

And yet, and yet, and yet…I don’t think the film is as bad as some people are making it out to be. If it had been, it might have been more fun. I think attempts to convince oneself or the public that it really was godawful rather than just mediocre are, at heart, attempts to inject some levity or creativity into the discussion surrounding a film that has so little of those qualities and yet is so loud and frenetic that indifference just doesn’t feel like a sufficient enough reaction. Unless you can muster the energy for loathing, you may end up feeling like you subjected yourself to all that noise for nothing.

Previous Post

March 9, 2011

The Desert of Forbidden Art (Pope and Georgiev, 2011)

Next Post

March 15, 2011 The Royal Tenenbaums (Anderson, 2001) -- Ten Years Later

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 10 Years Later 1999 Top 5 2007 Top 10 2008 Favorite Discoveries 2008 Top 10 2009 Favorite Discoveries 2009 Top 10 2010 Favorite Discoveries 2010 Top 10 2011 Top 10 2012 Top Ten 2013 Top Ten 2014 Top Ten Best Picture Winners Christian Spotlight on Entertainment Christianity Today Coming Soon Disclosure Disclosure--AS Disclosure--Book Disclosure--DVDS Disclosure--SEOL Disclosure--Travel Dissenting Opinion Elsewhere Emergenetics Essays Featured Film Fest DC--2014 Film Festivals Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2011 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2013 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2014 Headline Interviews Laura on the Oscar Winners Podcasts Quick Impressions Reviews RiverRun Film Festival 2014 Television The Criterion Collection The Thin Place To Stream or Not to Stream? Top 10s and Other Lists Toronto International Film Festival 2009 Toronto International Film Festival 2010 Toronto International Film Festival 2011 Toronto International Film Festival 2012 Toronto International Film Festival 2013 Toronto International Film Festival 2014 Uncategorized Video Virginia Film Festival 2011 Virginia Film Festival 2013 Women's Film Festival 2012

Select a Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A donkey A camel An ox A horse