Review: Liebesman's 'Battle: Los Angeles' Aims to Excite and Hits

March 11, 2011

Battle: Los Angeles

Battle: Los Angeles is smart enough to know it's not that smart. It doesn't try to be too many steps ahead of its audience and for good reason. This isn't about intricately detailed plot journeys or ideologies grander than a sidewalk puddle. This is about full-force destruction and blowing stuff up. It's about being loud, exciting, and looking great while achieving both of those things, and that is precisely where Battle: Los Angeles succeeds. Or should I say, "tears it up?" You should never check your brain at the door. That's not what this preamble is about, but certain movies blast their way onto your eyeballs with such a fury that you almost forgive the plot holes, lame dialogue, and weak character development, all of which are on hand here.

In Battle: Los Angeles, those weak characters are the Marines, rugged, hardened, and ready to blast any invading body that dares set foot on American soil with an eye for domination. In fact, Battle: Los Angeles could be used as a recruiting piece for the United States Marines Corps. JOIN THE MARINES! YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN ALIENS MIGHT INVADE! And so it goes 24 hours after alien invaders land on Earth and begin wiping us out that the Marines are called into Los Angeles, to hold that line at Santa Monica lest our visiting attackers from the sky continue to walk all over us.

Chris Bertolini's script uses jarhead as a characteristic to great lengths. Of course there's a visible difference between each soldier in the platoon we follow. That's a given. However, characteristically, they may as well have names like Solder #1 and Soldier #2. Some of them are given individualizing back stories, most of which feeds into the obvious melodrama of watching some of them die. It adds a weight when those moments occur, but, for the most part, any idiomaticness found in Battle: Los Angeles is found at the surface level.

The only real standout in terms of character arc, as it would be, is the hero, Nantz, played by hard-jawed and gruff-voiced Aaron Eckhart. Nantz is a soldier who has lost too many men under his command. Recently retired from active duty, he is called back in when the extraterrestrial apocalypse begins raining down. Now, under the command of another, a member of a troop made up of soldiers who have heard stories about his past losses - including the brother of a soldier who died under Nantz's command - Nantz must contend with the blight on his reputation and name and the survivor's guilt found welling up inside him.

But enough about silly things like character building and plot nuance. All of that as well as news images of the aliens landing and beginning their trek towards total dominance is crammed into the first 20-30 minutes. After that, once the soldiers set foot onto the cloudy and crumbling streets of Los Angeles, the action begins. For 90 minutes, it hardly lets up creating a whirling barrage of battle scene imagery.

Jonathan Liebesman directs the action in Battle: Los Angeles with a furious pace. There's a hardness to the film when it comes to the action both in terms of sound and visual execution. When guns are fired, the sound rips through the speakers like a piercing wave. When explosions are set off, they roar. With the camera right in the middle of the action, it become disorienting at times, a definite call-back to the dizzying fury from past war films like Black Hawk Down or the opening moments of Saving Private Ryan. This is clearly a sense memory Liebesman wanted to accentuate to his audience with the fight scenes in Battle: Los Angeles.

The camerawork is jittery, that commonplace “put you right in the middle of the action” shaky cam that so many directors feel the necessity to incorporate. Few directors know how to utilize this technique without prompting a sense of confusion, that issue of never being able to differentiate between the soldiers or know what is happening when bullets and laser blasts are flying. That's present to a certain extent in Battle: Los Angeles, but it's never so confounding as to be completely lost in blurred shot composition or bewildering editing. Liebesman shoots in such a way that the excitement and intensity of the battles never gets in the way of knowing which soldier is at the center of any particular moment.

The successful shaky cam technique also does wonders for certain CGI-laden moments in Battle: LA. The aliens themselves as well as their drone ships that swoop in blasting everything in sight are all CG. There are certain times in the film where Liebesman holds on them a little longer than he should, and the wonkiness of their design and the effects stands out. Thankfully, we mostly only see them in quick glimpses and flashes as the shot jerks past the scene at hand.

Shaky cam can't do much for jarring lines of dialogue, though, some of which are obviously looped in after the fact just to provide expository information to the audience. Those moments are about as lame as the film's writing gets, and they take you right out of any action that might be going on around it.

But through hokey computer effects, loopy dialogue, and characters who are different in looks alone, a fast-paced, exciting bit of bravado booms through in Battle: Los Angeles. The film itself is a grunt. It has a job to do. It sets out to do that job, and it succeeds using maximum brutal force. The goal at hand here is to entertain, to give audiences two hours of exhilaration, to feed the video game appetites of action-craving masses. Where the film falters in story it all but makes up for in execution and design. Battle: Los Angeles is alien-blasting good fun, and that's all it claims to be. Had it set out for something greater and failed, no amount of aggressiveness or intensity could have saved it from backlash, but it's a good little soldier, and like a good little soldier it does its job exceedingly well.

Jeremy's Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Find more posts: Opinions, Review, Sci-Fi



Man, I really hope this doesn't suck! I have a feeling it will, but let's see how Liebesman handles this anyways. (I already don't care for his work - Yes, I've seen all of them so far)

Conrad Williams on Mar 11, 2011


Hey Conrad, Give it a shot. I saw it, and yeah, it isn't a character piece or an intimate rom-com. It is what it is--a balls-to-the-wall, gritty, alien invasion film that goes for street-level combat. Yes, the dialogue is clunky at times, but you know what? I had a blast watching it. I know that some critics are mauling this, know what? Screw 'em. Give it a look. You may like it, you may not, but take the film on its own terms (and don't bring a mental checklist with you) and it could work. Cheers.

Marc McKenzie on Mar 12, 2011


It was pretty intense throughout, but it was still lacking something..I can't quite figure it out.

jah p on Mar 12, 2011


I found it long and boring. It was two hours of balls to the wall action. Which doesn't sound like a bad thing, but the action during the first half of the movie wasn't varied enough and I eventually became numb to it, even finding myself yawning. On top of that, I found that the action scenes reminded me somewhat of Quantum of Solace. Fast cuts that are supposed to give an artificial sense of franticness. The difference is that in QoS it was just plain annoying. At least here, in a movie about soldiers in wartime, that style of editing feels right. But it still makes it a little difficult to focus on exactly what's going on, who is shooting who, etc., and certainly makes it difficult for me to take any enjoyment from it. That said, I did find the second half of the movie to be more enjoyable than the first half.

Craig on Mar 12, 2011


I yawned alot too, and even had time to make a comment about how one of the soldiers looked like Eminem.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


Saw it! The good: Intense, a lot of action, great computer graphics, a taste of "War of the Worlds" and the TV series "V". The Bad: The first 10 mins. got me dizzy, to much handheld camara movement. What "Top Gun" did for the US Navy fliers, this one will do for US Marine ground troops. However, I think Michelle Rodriguez should have played the First Sargeant than an Air Force Tech (She looked more rough than Nantz). Over all view 9 out of 10

Adornobv on Mar 12, 2011


Just saw it! Big Thumbs Up!

Lamar on Mar 12, 2011


movie was great! screw what the critics are saying. the action is intense, think call of duty with aliens!

Gfdoom on Mar 12, 2011


Really Everyone? Really? No No Really? Is Character Development Really A Waste of Our Time Now? Do We Have To Trade That For 30 Minutes Of Extra Explosions And "Shaky Cam"? I'm Sorry, But I Hated This Movie. I Guess I'm Just Gonna Have To Stop Watching Movie Until Major Plot Resolution Resurfaces. Ya Know People Used To Actually Boooo Movies That Blatantly Looked Like A Setup For A Sequel. I Guess Times Change. Tragic....Truly Tragic...

.......... on Mar 12, 2011


Call me crazy but it's pretty obvious the author was being sarcastic when he calls those elements "silly things." If those things are a deal breaker for you then perhaps a bit more research is necessary before you send your dime on tickets. I don't remember reading a single screener review that said the flick had Oscar-winning performances, however, I do recall seeing plenty that said its a plethora of adrenaline-pumping action sequences. It's like saying you hate The King's Speech because there wasn't enough gunfire and car chases. . I do agree, though, that the author gave it too high a rating for his own review.

Anonymous on Mar 12, 2011


I disagree, because while we should never expect car chases from The King's Speech, we should expect a decent screenplay from Battle: LA - not brilliant, but at least decent enough to keep us engaged. Standards have dropped too low, especially for the young male demographic!

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


I totally agree with Jeremy's review here. I went into it knowing things weren't going to be all that original. And thats okay, because it still gets plenty of style points and was packed with edge-of-your-seat action throughout. My best description of Battle: LA would be that it's the love child of Blackhawk Down and Independence day. Nothing new here, but that's not automatically a bad thing...

Anonymous on Mar 12, 2011


This is something I can definitely agree with. Lame dialogue, soldier number one and soldier number two, lack of character development...not so much. It's an action movie with great visuals, great pacing, and believable performances. Not for everyone, clearly, but seriously some of these criticisms are a bit harsh. If the dialogue felt lame...umm maybe you shouldn't have gone to see a movie where soldiers shoot at stuff...really, why wouldn't there be cursing, confusion, and talks of what to do next? That seems more along the lines of "appropriate". And lack of character development? I guess novels are more your speed. It put characters in a situation and showed them deal with all good movies do. At no point was I thinking "wow, this action and good acting is so meaningless with tons of back story and montages of growth both physically and mentally of the characters". Some people just wont like it, but the reasons listed in some of these reviews don't really have legs to stand on. Just say you didn't like it. I recommend it to anyone wanting to see a well done action movie. Not someone who'll watch it and just try to find what was missing.

Cook on Mar 13, 2011


*I meant to type "WITHOUT tons of..." really dropped the ball on that typo lol

Cook on Mar 13, 2011


This was a great action movie black hawk down/District 9 kind of feel. though it did seem like they left out much not much detail on aliens. butn overall good movie. Aaron eckhart is awesome for the character played!

movieguru on Mar 12, 2011


I was hoping to see more alien footage. Like they were showing in the trailers, but either way I liked it.

mr migz on Mar 12, 2011


Yup, just like a video game... and like a video game, i tuned out about an hour into it because I was tired of seeing the same impressive effects over and over without a story that can take it somewhere... Pixar is strong on story, and when you're an hour into their movies, you realize that you are miles away from where you were when the movie started. An hour into Battle LA and I feel that I was still watching an extended trailer for it. Chasing tails!

Louis Plamondon on Mar 12, 2011


did you just compare an Alien Invasion movie to Pixar films?

Anonymous on Mar 12, 2011


More broadly, i compared a movies that have a story with movies that don't have a story. Can you even name three characters from Battle LA without checking IMDb? Did they even have names?

Louis Plamondon on Mar 12, 2011


Keep in mind that amazing special effects, great action pacing, and super talented actors like Eckhart will be at the service of the studio whether they choose to tell us a good story or not.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 12, 2011


I can agree, but this is a alien invasion movie, plat go out the window with the kitchen sink in this one. But you do bring up valid arguments.

Anonymous on Mar 13, 2011


Walked out after 30 minutes, why must filmakers use "shaky cam"!! Other great war movies find ways to get you in the middle of the action without the disoreinting effect of the camera shaking wildly for 20 minutes straight!

sgobones on Mar 12, 2011


I got a huge fcking headache after seeing that garbage. (The movie was fine lol, it's just the shaky cams seriously came my friends and I headaches.

Daniel Vu Tran on Mar 13, 2011


Guys this is about following a group of marines... They wouldn't know the big picture "plot" so we don't see the big picture. They just do what they are told and follow orders, and we followed what they did.

Flbball23 on Mar 13, 2011


@ Flbball23: it's a very cool concept for sure. Would have been fun if they cared to build a story around it.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


I yawned too. It reminded me of Star Wars Episode 3. so much mindless action it got kinda boring. I do think it was Ok in its technical aspects, but it's a shame it couldn't be a lot more than what it was.

Lucas Rios on Mar 13, 2011


the movie was great! people are just idiots expecting the plot of the movie to be oscar worthy..its an alien invasion movie following a marine squad kicking ass left and right and thats it...stop expecting too much and u will enjoy the movie for what it is, a fun action driven me it was an awesome action movie in which the action felt very personal in your face. almost felt like i was watching some sort of recreation made by the military channel. It felt authentic which was nice to see... 10/10 - Does a great job at what it is meant to do- entertain

Da305kratos on Mar 13, 2011


Agreed. People need to stop complaining. This movie was non stop action with impressive special effects and marines kicking alien ass on our home turf. If you want some emotional, life changing story then why on earth would you go see an alien invasion flick? If you want a bad ass war flick then this is it.

Thunderbeast on Mar 13, 2011


District 9....... an alien "invasion" flick with a life changing story

badleLA on Mar 13, 2011


D9 not an alien invasion flick bud...a drama with some action more like it... Battle LA = Black Hawk Down meets Aliens....seems about right

Da305kratos on Mar 14, 2011


D9 not an alien invasion flick bud...a drama with some action more like it... Battle LA = Black Hawk Down meets Aliens....seems about right

Da305kratos on Mar 14, 2011


Great flick! In my opinion, this is what, "Independence Day" should have been! The action, the cast, the story, was good enough for the kind of flick, "Battle: Los Angeles" set out be. The dialogue was passable, not nearly as cheesy or cringe-worthy as many have been claiming! Hell, even the aliens were pretty credible and seemed every bit as threatening and hard-to-kill as the flick portrayed them. The concept of the drones and their triangulation of radio frequencies to pinpoint their enemies was pretty awesome. I'd definitely check this flick out again, as I sure enjoyed it way more than, "Skyline"

Spider on Mar 13, 2011


I thought it was pretty good. This is one of those movies where the critic reviews don't make much sense. I understand their point about cheesy dialogue or the fact that we've seen this story before, but for what it is, Battle LA was pretty kick ass. How can you complain about cheesy dialogue and cliches and then rave about Avatar or Transformers? The action sequences in this movie are some of the best I've seen in a Sci Fi flick. Like mCloverfield you will have people that loved it and those who wont.

john s on Mar 13, 2011


The movie i thought was great all around i give it a 9/10

Cobaugh on Mar 13, 2011


If they could have made a 20 min. short with nothing but the kick-ass scenes you guys are reminding yourselves about when praising this movie (especially the backyard neighborhood warzone part), it would have been great! The sad thing is that they DID try to be emotional and failed miserably. Not everything has to be Oscar worthy, but I don't think it's too much to ask to have the movie be somewhere further an hour into it than when it started. Gene Siskel said in his video review of ID4: "I invested two hours of my life watching this movie... give me some time in a screenplay and some imagination with the characters to make it all worthwhile". He was right folks! You can't be entertained with a movie that doesn't put any effort to go somewhere - you can only be stimulated. Battle LA was a very stimulating movie, but if that's all you guys need to be happy, you're really missing out.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


"why wouldn't it be more".............I see your point and every movie has the potential to BE more. But, that's irrelevant because, 'Battle: LA' is what we actually GOT. Audiences have become more and more picky and expect a semi (yes, semi) perfection that doesn't actually exist but only few have come close i.e. TDK. As far as movies-we either like 'em or hate em'.

Blue Silver on Mar 13, 2011


Studios have hundreds of millions and the best talent in the world at their disposal to entertain us and while not everything has to be in contention for Best Picture, we need to demand more than Battle LA in terms of fresh concepts and richer stories that make us - even minimally - care about characters. Inception shouldn't be the exception - it should the type of summer movie every studio needs to make. Not semi perfection, just something less tired and respectfully written that respects how you worked hard to earn that twelve dollars you just spent on a ticket.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


You make reasonable points, but millions of dollars thrown at the screen does not guarantee a good movie. For every Christopher Nolan, Hollywood has at least 10 hack directors and so on....and thank god for Nolan, Aronofsky, (insert other reputable director name here). Obviously, 'Battle: LA' was overall-superior than say, 'Skyline'....and sure the box-office receipts clearly show(although box office is no scientific gauge for determining a quality blockbuster) In essence, Hollywood has gotten complacent and care-free in their approach to modern movies. They either re-boot/re-imagine or just simply crank out the tired(tried) and true, assembly line piece of so called entertainment....sheer laziness. That's where WE make the choice to plunk down our hard earned dollars after we see the trailers. It's our choice! Having typed that, we knew what this movie was about, 'ID-4' meets 'Blackhawk Down'=action movie with soldiers vs aliens. It was not nearly as bad as the previous alien invasion movies of late. The quality was significantly better. Again, when in doubt, don't hesitate to place any movie in your Netflix queue(if you have a Netflix account). That's what I do with the majority of the generic, tired movies that Hollywood cranks out, and save your $12 'til Christopher Nolan's next cinematic masterpiece!

Blue Silver on Mar 13, 2011


You are absolutely correct. Hollywood needs to sell their movies to stay in business - so they are going to give you whatever you're asking for. I really enjoyed the action and production values of Battle LA - especially the swimming pool scene and everything around then. That stuff could have been at the service of a good script though. People call Pixar, Darren Aronofsky and Chris Nolan geniuses but they all share the same secret: they refuse to go into production unless they have a great story that is worth telling to millions of people. Nolan thought of Inception when The Matrix came out (which he loved so much that he cast its actors in Memento). Natalie Portman had a meeting with Aronofsky about Black Swan ten years ago. Pixar came up with WALL-E when the first Toy Story was in production and it took almost a decade for the third one to come out. Are they geniuses or are they just putting extra craft and care in the most crucial component of what makes a good movie? I enjoyed plenty of movies last year - Scott Pilgrim wasn't intellectual or going for a Best Picture but it was inventive and telling a fun little story that was fast-paced and filled with colorful characters (Wright took 4 years of his life to make it). The box-office does speak volumes of how exhausted moviegoers are of the same movie over and over and how word-of-mouth travels at the speed of tweets. Battle LA is having the same opening as Dear John about a year ago (5M give or take). How come it's not making 100M if it's about Santa Monica getting ripped to shreds? And how come a movie about a bunch of toys stuck in a day care just creamed everything else that came out in 2010 by a hundred million domestic? These hack directors you're talking about can be out of a job if we collectively choose to ignore they bad movies. Respect from studios starts with respect of ourselves.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 13, 2011


Even sci-fi action movies need something resembling a plot, a good script and characters with more than two dimensions.

needs more than CGI on Mar 13, 2011


very true, thats why i liked ur comment... from the directors comments in the interview with this site, he stated if i remember correctly that he wanted that authentic documentary type film following this my opinion he did that perfectly, a recreation of what would have been a documentary about a marine squad fighting back aliens...

Da305kratos on Mar 14, 2011


im still deciding to go see this :s

A5J4DX on Nov 13, 2018


im still deciding to go see this :s

A5J4DX on Nov 13, 2018


i generally don't go see movies about war. I guess i like things to be easy these days. But this was something more than independence day. Having served in the military, i could really relate to the anger, the disappointment, the fear, the excitment, the unexpected danger, the dedication and the courage that you have to experience while in battle. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and i had tears in my eyes during half of it. I consider it to be of the same caliber as those John Wayne War movies. But with less camp lol. I loved that movie. SEMPER FI MARINES!

Dabaki on Mar 13, 2011


@Louis Plamondon. Of course every film could be serviced by a good script. Hollywood is complacent. I'm pretty sure, that "Inception" has made studios take notice of the obvious fact that people are dying to see quality entertainment. Unfortunately, the wheels in Hollywood will continue to move slowly as they crank out the usual Hollywood stuff for those that just want to be entertained and not just have to think. I'm sure there are boatloads of people who just want to escape reality-- bringing me to another point: You ask how come it didn't open at 100 million when 'Toy Story 3' did "cream" everything else??? I figured you'd know that 'Toy Story 3' is a concept movie with a BUILT-IN audience benefited by two previous MAGNIFICENT installments.....This is a no-brainer! As far as 'Battle: LA' opening, IRONICALLY, on the weekend when an earthquake and a tsunami ripped through Japan and spread fear along the entire West Coast (including Santa Monica), I'd guess that these events dented the box office take! However $36 million ( is not too shabby at all. ......The box office suggests that even 'Battle: LA' had enough people buying tickets to land #1. Even as you say, moviegoers are "exhausted by the same movies over and over"...this disproves your argument, so feel free to debunk on your own time!!! I, too would love to see more quality movies as well, but the reality is: we are in the minority, and Hollywood doesn't even respect itself, let alone the audience. You know that! Another crucial factor is the studio heads butting in with relentless input and doing away with the director's vision. Nolan is powerful and he uses his power to craft cinematic masterpieces.. The question is: Will other creative forces do the same instead of caving in to studio demands???? We shall see!!.............. I can dream too and sure, RESPECT for the audiences is paramount!.....So, if a trailer doesn't make me wanna see the film, then more than likely, Netflix queue! $12/mo. and unlimited movies. You can't beat that because I make the list of what I choose to watch, I'll simply remove the cheese, get it!!!!! We can discuss this topic for hours on end and we'll still end up RIGHT WHERE WE STARTED, so this will be my last post so if you wish to have the last word, then by all means....knock yourself out!!!!!

Blue Silver on Mar 14, 2011


Yeah the last word baby! Woohoo! Agreed it didn't bomb but the state of overall box-office has been atrocious in 2011. We're in mid-march and no movie has passed the 100M dollar mark. It's an issue of many interests clashing with one another and reaching for consensus. The real boss, however... the board of directors... is the moviegoing public because they ultimately control the box-office.

Louis Plamondon on Mar 14, 2011


Well for all that think this is a great action movie there is allot to say about it. I will say 4 out of 10, and by the way why is every movie out so far is a PG or PG13 ist just me or what....

Pizza1man on Mar 14, 2011


There are no R movies because studios do not want to leave out any potential sources of revenue.

Goldsmith Jamie on Mar 14, 2011


It was hilariously bad. I liked some things but mostly it was just a bit silly. For all the hype, which there was a whole load of, it was just a silly action film. The end bit where they load up with more ammo and go have a wee gun loading session and head back out is dafter than Scientology.

Crapola on Mar 14, 2011


ur name matches ur comment...just my opinion...hilariously bad? are u kidding me? its not oscar worthy but to say its bad is hilarious in itself...

Da305kratos on Mar 14, 2011


I was having a lolfest all the way through watching totally rofl'd a few times. I was actually on the floor rofl'ing. Ack it wasn't that bad I suppose, I thought it was going to be more like Gone With the Wind n shit, but it was more like Break Dance 2 - Electric Boogaloo and that was some whack toast. You know?

Crapola on Mar 15, 2011


There was plenty of "character development" on hand. I mean really, how much "developing" do we expect in a couple hours? I'm 40 and it took me DECADES to "develop" into who I am now. Anybody who expects to see something like that in a two or three hour film is a moron. Get over it. The marines didn't trust the SSGT at first and they did before the end. Development enough. It was an action movie and succeeded 100% at it. If you don't want to see action films stay home.. or go see something else. I don't recall one ad where this movie pretended to be anything other than what it is. Oh, and Michelle Rodriguez didn't die...

Anonymous on Mar 14, 2011


I totally agree! character development has been such a catch phrase these days that people are saying it without realising how is it achieved. I love this movie. it's intense, it's in your face, it's unrelenting and unapologetic about its approach. this is an action-focused sci-fi, characters are there to fight or be killed. it really doesn't matter if their back stories aren't fully developed or their characters don't change much. i do have some issues with the shacky-cam. man, even if you want to put me there, right at the spot in the middle of a conversation or gunfight, my head don't bob up and down. seriously.

Key on Mar 14, 2011


LoL..this movie was will be quickly forgotton

Trey on Mar 14, 2011


if u thought this movie was awful, i'd like to know what u think is a pretty good movie besides the obvious ones...

Da305kratos on Mar 14, 2011


Well, be prepared to see DISTRICT 9 and INCEPTION mentioned...and that's about it. It seems that for some, that's all they can fall back on. Oh well. And I wonder--did he even see the film?

Marc McKenzie on Mar 15, 2011


I was into the movie wanting to see what was going to happen next , some of it was predictable but overall this movie was fun and did its job of keeping me entertained, kinda sucks that so many people always pick at movies, kind of miss it when people would just go see a movie and end enjoy it instead of criticize it

Splinter on Mar 14, 2011


Like sheep you mean?

Crapola on Mar 14, 2011


I thought it was one of the most bad-ass, intense movies I've ever seen. It really felt like what would happen if aliens arrived and started kicking the shit out of us. Real life isn't plot driven and this felt as real as any alien invasion movie I have seen. There were some scenes that were kind of predictable but what wasn't predictable was the intensity brought to these scenes. Take Inedendence Day and mix it with Black Hawk Down and throw in some Saving Private Ryan and you have this movie.

Goldsmith Jamie on Mar 14, 2011


I loved it also!! I fully agree with that it was what Independence Day should've been. Couple of scary scenes i didnt expect as well, like when there were full on gun battles the aliens still would snatch up the wounded marines. As if wounded wasnt enough, your gettin abducted too. My fav alien invasion movie by far. Was on edge of seat till the end also.

Jesse on Mar 14, 2011


Liked it myself, Jesse, critics be damned. The action worked, and the story was straightforward--aliens come, kick our ass, we have to fight back. Sure, there was some clunky dialogue, but Eckhart really held the film together, and the cast worked. I wasn't expecting DISTRICT 9 II--D9 involves aliens but it's a different film altogether. I also liked the ending right before the credits. It wasn't a perfect movie, but it certainly delivered the goods.

Marc McKenzie on Mar 15, 2011


I have to say that I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. While I agree with Jeremy for the most part, I didn't find the "shaky" filming that bad... In fact when compared to other films like "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield" this movie's camera work is a none issue. Anyway, if you get a chance check out my thoughts: Thanks for another great review Jeremy.

WhizBang Parade . on Mar 27, 2011


Piece of crap. I couldn't even watch it till the end.

Dex on Jun 7, 2011

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram