Review: The Most Fearsome Enemy in ‘Battle: LA’ is Suckiness

I’m just kinda curious what kind of person goes into this movie expecting anything other than special effects and HOO RAH AMERICAH. Consider the content rather than placing all your faith in how trailers are edited together. Aliens are invading America in a big-budget Hollywood war movie. That only goes one way. Could they have done it differently? Of course. But that would anger focus groups and most likely make a fraction of the money. Why in the name of Xenu’s grey scalp would you expect depth and quality from *this*?

Thanks for the comment.

For starters, let’s make sure it’s clear which trailer I’m talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok51VWk_uBY

Why would I expect depth and quality from this film? Because I had no other reason not to.

Once I decide to watch a film, I try to block out any other information if possible. I enjoy going in as a blank slate so I can let the film sell me on its own merits. I saw the teaser trailer for ‘Battle: LA’ last December and it was the only impression I had of it going into the film.

So ‘what kind of person goes into this movie expecting anything other than special effects and HOO RAH AMERICAH’, I suppose the answer is ‘anyone who only watched that trailer’. I got a lot of things from it: ‘elegance’, ‘artistry’, ‘beauty’, ‘pain’, ‘sadness’ and ‘fear’, but unbridled nationalism and shitty dialogue weren’t among them. In fact there was no dialogue. Very strategic choice I think.

To your point, ‘Consider the content’, I’m a little confused as to what you mean. You seem to be making the assumption that the content (alien invasion on American soil) inherently means that it has to contain a certain shallowness of plot and character.

I don’t think there’s any genre of filmmaking that inherently lends itself to a certain level of shallowness. Regardless the genre or sub-genre, there’s always room for character development, and it will always serve to improve the film. Even in action movies, caring about the characters improves the final product. It creates tension and suspense when danger threatens people we care about. In ‘Battle: LA’ I easily forgot every character’s 20-second, token history, and couldn’t have cared any less when they got blown to bits.

Even if you’re right, and if aliens invading America in a big-budget Hollywood war movie has only ever gone one way (superficial plot and characters, lots of ‘splosions), that doesn’t necessarily mean this movie has to go that way.

Finally, you assume deviating from this formula will lead to angering focus groups and most likely making a fraction of the money. Why? Why would rounding out characters and making a powerful experience anger focus groups? Why would something that potentially could be a better movie make less money? Could it make less money? Sure, but that has nothing to do with its deviation from a movie-making formula. It’s all hypothetical, so it’s impossible to know.

I just want to close by saying, not every movie needs to be about substance. I’m going to see ‘Hobo With a Shotgun’ soon, and expect nothing more than a shallow, bloody good time. But the difference is, ‘Hobo With a Shotgun’ never tried to tell me it was anything different.

It’s inconceivable to believe that a film with such a potentially entertaining premise could feel so tedious, but sadly it’s true.

[...] it never really feels that way, and coupled with the fact that this movie has dialogue that gives Battle: Los Angeles a run for its money, Sucker Punch is really hard to invest in as a [...]