By Bryan Menegus
The countless filmmaking errors committed by Battle: Los Angeles make it difficult to choose which is the most salient.
It would be easy to criticize the characterization, or near absence of it; this movie doesn't sculpt real people. Instead, it does one of two things: 1) relies on a series of war-themed tropes (male feelings thinly veiled beneath machismo, a soldier speaking by an unknown gravestone before shipping out; the loner gadfly who questions orders) to give the audience an idea of a person, and 2) includes extra bodies in a scene for the sole purpose of receiving bullets.
Likewise, it would be a simple matter to blame Christopher Bertolini's laughable script. The majority of lines delivered are as meaningless as the near-constant hail of gunfire. Just as the audience isn't tricked into empathy by the shaky-cam pseudo-documentary visual style, the erratic barks of "Grenade" or "Hostile at 12 O'Clock" or "Ambush" don't convey a sense of danger--especially when the audience either knows (or doesn't care) which characters will make it out alive. This isn't to say it's poorly acted. In spite of a poor script, Aaron Eckhart is fairly convincing in his role as Staff Sergeant Nantz, but he is forced to squeeze what he can out of a dry sponge amidst an ocean of unsuspended disbelief.
The abhorrent jingoism of Battle: Los Angeles is also difficult to stomach. Somehow, director Jonathan Liebesman takes the tiring journey of a handful of Marines in the midst of an invasion by unapologetic conquistadors from space, and still manages to make it look like trigger-happy advertisement to enlist. There are repeated comparisons between the tactics of the Marines and their relentless foes. While this could be used as a perfect set-up to juxtapose (and humanize) both forces, as District 9 did, the point is made and revisited, but never delved into.
On the topic of Battle's aliens, much is left to be desired. They seem to possess traits both mechanical and organic (when you shoot them, they make sparks and goop). What could have been a horror-inducing hybridization is reduced to a swarm of tall blurry things rapidly entering the field of view, or being spied from afar with military binoculars. The audience is also never given a satisfactory explanation for the invasion. At one point, a talking head on a news program theorizes that the aliens' goal is to take the Earth's water and use it for fuel, but this hypothesis is never visually confirmed for the audience. This same so-called expert states that the Earth is the only planet in our known universe with a significant quantity of liquid H2O on its surface, which begs the question: how did the aliens have enough fuel to reach our planet?
Decidedly, the most frustrating part of this movie is its most glaring plot hole. Less than a minute into Battle: Los Angeles, the audience is informed via voiceover, "The world is at war." Eckhart and company's mission—to save straggling civilians before B-52s level most of the city, and the aliens with it—is compromised when reinforcements never arrive. The American military is either crippled or busy elsewhere, or so the audience is lead to believe. But never once is it mentioned that attacks are being carried out anywhere except America's East and West coasts. Seemingly, the aliens only attack our country so that the United States is able to prove its indefatigable military might. And yet, draining the Earth of its water would be a point of concern for everyone. Presumably, the nations of the world that aren't attacked would mobilize and help with the war effort. But, to the chagrin of absolutely no one, that might render Sergeant Nantz's small victory a story not worth telling.
Aaron Eckhart tries his best to be convincing as a stereotypical staff sergeant. (Courtesy of Sony Pictures)