Review of Battle: Los Angeles (2011) by Caiobrz — 18 Jul 2011

I find it quite interesting how low rated this movie is JUST because it is a meddle of all-too-common subjects and cliches. People tend to forget that the best stories are often repeated to exhaustion every other year with a different tweak and a different cast, and they still go and clamor each title - yet, for this movie, "more of the same" was seen as negative.

It has all the best elements of a good sci-fi, of a good drama, and of a good movie, and the fact it's long and try to engage you with the characters, while not that all successful, is a merit to this movie.

Yes you have seen this movie before dozens of times with different names, but that's exactly why this is so good: it does not try to set itself apart from "all of those other invasion movies", instead, it munches all the good qualities and point of views together to make a WHOLE experience.

It's not just the point of view of some survivors, not just the point of view of some mariners, not the point of view of the President, not even the point of view of a joe-doe with a camera - it's all of that, together, and with a fine print: the aliens MAKE SENSE, their goals MAKE SENSE, the strategies MAKE SENSE, and how mankind try to fight back MAKE SENSE - that, alone, sets this movie apart, and way above, most of the others.

Perhaps it's too smart and logic to critics or the common viewer, but those looking for more, this is it, THE invasion movie, period. Why I rate it 9 and not 10? because the movie failed at MARKETING and telling people this movie was a different take on the invasion subject, and not just "another" invasion movie.