The new action film “Battle: Los Angeles” isn’t perfect.
OK, that’s like saving Julian Assange has trouble keeping secrets.
“Battle” is dopey to the core, with giggle-inducing dialogue, shaky cams gone wild and a host of other structural issues. But perusing a few of the critical responses to “Battle” yields something else “wrong” with the film. It doesn’t march lockstep with some critics’ ideological fault lines.
The movie brands U.S. Marines as heroes, showing how noble and brave they are in the face of an alien onslaught. It’s not the typical theme you see in movies today, especially ones with a military component.
Consider this review in The Washington Post:
Did somebody mention Iraq? “Battle’s” depiction of block-by-block urban combat against an implacable, enigmatic foe evokes Baghdad at its bloodiest. But director Jonathan Liebesman (whose background is in horror flicks) isn’t interested in allegory, nuance or social comment. He just wants to line up platinum-plated space-squids to be blown away.
And Roger Ebert, an avowed liberal, hated the film so much he called anyone who disagreed with him an “idiot.”
Left of center Movieline seemed aghast that the film shows the Marines in a glowing light:
Christopher Bertolini’s script is notable for its recruitment pamphlet-level of dedication to the glory of the U.S. Marines. As if the way superhero handsome [Aaron ]Eckhart fills out a helmet and chinstrap doesn’t say it all, Bertolini has him huffing on about showing the enemy how Marines fight, reminding his colleagues that Marines don’t quit, and giving glittery-eyed speeches about how even when Marines make the wrong decision at least they have the courage to make a decision. (Note to George W.: I think I just found your new favorite movie.) … Shadowy Vietnam allusions crop up here and there — particularly a last, frantic airlift out of L.A. — but on the whole “Battle: Los Angeles” is the emptiest form of sci-fi action: Just one bloody (or alien gooey) thing after another.
Slant Magazine sees the film as propaganda, plain and simple.
The film is plainly cut from the mold of old-school military propaganda films and rejected “Call of Duty” missions, mixing righteously ideological statements about faith and honor with emotionally manipulative dialogue sequences, all in the attempt to maximize its potential for cinematic offspring … All anybody can do, characters and cinema patrons alike, is survive the madness long enough to see the light. For Nantz [Eckhart] and his crew, that equates to a rejuvenation of national pride and purpose.
Salon.com sees the film as an example of “imperial decline.”
First of all, it’s like the movie is trying to make Americans feel better about the fact that our ultra-high-tech military has been stalemated by a bunch of 15th-century tribalist wackos with 30-year-old Kalashnikovs on the other side of the world … I realized that the movie’s real reversal is psychological, in that it depicts this band of gung-ho, multicultural United States Marines as resistance fighters, striking at the underbelly of an occupying army. Allah-u-akbar! That’s right; if there’s any tenuous parallel to contemporary affairs at work here, it casts the Americans as the guerrilla insurgents. We never learn a damn thing about the alien invaders in “Battle: Los Angeles” — beyond the evident fact that they want our planet without us on it — which is why you can call it a war movie or a disaster movie, but it isn’t really science fiction. They’re a fantasy enemy vomited up from the collective id and scrubbed clean of all racial, political or religious considerations, against whom we can look like noble underdogs. Or they’re just the underpowered villains of an unintentionally funny action movie starring Aaron Eckhart’s chin. Either way, we’re talking serious symptoms of imperial decline.
Kudos to The New York Times’ A.O. Scott for addressing the movie, and its flaws, head on:
No interesting political implications to chew over, as in “District 9,” and no truly breathtaking special effects. Just some slimy creatures with heavy firepower laying waste to the smog-bound skyline and a hearty band of Marines (with a handful of civilians and a tough-as-nails Air Force sergeant thrown in for diversity) fighting a running street battle.
(Photo: Aaron Eckart stars in Columbia Pictures’ “Battle: Los Angeles” – photo credit: Richard Cartwright)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
You know, what I appreciate about your take, vs most others is that if the movie is bad, or at least poorly written, you’ll say so without attacking it’s ideological views, regardless if they’re left or right. I’ve seen this in other reviews you’ve written so thanks for that.
If others want to make sure we don’t see this film they would do themselves a service by following suit and basing their reviews as such. To say the film is bad for no other reason than it shows the military in a good light? Please. If that’s all you got then move along. You’re wasting your time and ours.
If they want to point out that the dialog is bad as if it’s written for a bad Halmark Television movie, the effects are bad CGI or whatever, and the shaky cam is annoying (though I failed to notice a difference between this and Cloverfield, Blair Witch etc.) then say so. But if your only complaint is that it shows the military in a good way then you have bigger issues than a film review.
The nice thing about the internet these days seems to be that people who practice this type of writting seem to be of a less and less influence than in previous years.
You hit the nail on the head here. These same critics have no problem with “propaganda” in movies when they’re of the anti-military or anti-American kind (see Avatar, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, etc.), and they have no problem with incoherently-filmed action movies, as long as they line up with the critics’ personal politics (see the films of Paul Greengrass). But if you put them in a film that they disagree with, then suddenly these things are deal breakers.
If these people want to be idealogues instead of film reviewers, then they should man up and say so, instead of hiding behind hypocritical double-standards.
The way these lefties are complaining about the way the military is portrayed makes me wish the filmmakers hadn’t abused the shaky-cam. I might actually be interested in seeing it, otherwise.
I’m sure they wanted a “war documentary” feel, but if I want something with a “war documentary” feel, I’ll watch an actual war documentary.
That was the first thing written in Todd (take any available swipe at the U.S. military) McCarthy’s review for The Hollywood Reporter.
I have not seen this, but will catch in on Cable some late night. I imagine that the shaky camera is like you see in REAL video from embed journalists with our troop that when shooting/running around/shouting happens our heroic journalists are shakier than the “Blair Witch Project” on crank.
Ebert is not only an idiot but a hypocrite. If Ebert is so frickin smart and knows so much why isn’t he making films. Oh, wait. He has. He and Russ Meyer’s take credit for films that featured mostly if not all BIG BREASTED NAKED WOMEN which by the way were so dopey they BOMBED at the boxoffice. Talk about blow back.
By the way, I saw the film and for what the film is, a non stop fun thrill ride featuring.heroic, patriotic U.S. Marines going into battle against aliens in order to save civilians, it delivers. This film does not pretend to be a romance, a thriller, or a thought provoking political seminar and it certainly is not what I would call a sci-fi film as Ebert contends. It is a war film and aliens just happen to be the enemy. As for the shaky cam the director uses the cam in presenting the audience with tense in your face action scenes.
Didn’t plan to see it, but now I will. Even if the film were technically all that bad, the reviewers are simply nincompoopyheads. I like heroes, too bad the reviewers don’t realize that they’ve become certified wimps unable to man-up.. Can’t depend on their saving this damsel in distress.
I would just like to say that even in time of the movie they pushed it. But I am a Marine and i watched the film in Oceanside, CA right out side the gates of Camp Pendleton with the theater packed full of Marines and Marine families it made me feel proud to be an American thats what this was all about. It made me and everyone there feel good about our country.
Yet another reminder that the Left really is the enemy within that we need to defeat.
HELLO? Spoiler alert on Movieline qoute?
I haven’t seen the film yet, but no one can disagree that Roger Ebert is an idiot.
Did anyone see any reviews of Avatar looking like this?
‘The film is plainly cut from the mold of old-school soviet propaganda films and rejected environmental PSAs, mixing righteously ideological statements about the environment and native pride with emotionally manipulative dialogue sequences, all in the attempt to maximize its potential for cinematic offspring … All anybody can do, characters and cinema patrons alike, is survive the madness long enough to see the light.’
Apparently the movie going public really liked this film as it was #1 at the box office this weekend. That says volumes about preferences. Even as bad as ‘Battle for LA’ is, most viewers are searching for an escape to the stream of political sucker punch movies being rolled out by the out of touch Hollywood crowd. Movie goers want to se positive roles for the American military as most people see the American Soldier as a hero and someone who is actually giving selflessly to America so others can be safe and free. Hollywood doesn’t want to recognize that and it is hurting the industry bigtime.
God damn shaky cam.
Well as an old Zoomie, and to hear an AF sergeant involved in a running gun battle shot by a cameraman with epilepsy, well this just became a must see! Aliens please check “6″
cheers from the dark side
I just saw the film today and loved it, along with my 15 year old son and from what I could tell everyone else in the audience. Shaky-cam aside, and Lord did it shake, the movie was fantastic. It was pro-American military (courage, honor, tradition, love of country) the whole way through. Yeah, it was mostly a Marine flick, but there was plenty Air Force, Army and even the Coast Guard involved – all looking good for a change.
Others are saying it was badly written. Yeah, maybe so in parts, but damn man, it’s a fricken action movie – if you want to fall asleep go see The King’s Speech.
After the rescue helicopter was blown up, the movie clicked with the audience I was with. Since that scene, ever heroic act was cheered. Every casualty was mourned. You bet this move was pro-Marine, and the audience loved it!
WELL I WILL DEFINITELY GO SEE IT NOW.
SEMPER FI!!!
Oh and will some one PLEASE, pretty please go stuff
an old smelly sock in Roger Ebert’s pie hole all-ready????
Please??
DO IT SOON!!
The funny thing is that the moronic reviewers are complaining this is propaganda because it seems to be intentionally showing the military in a positive light. The movie isn’t “intentionally” trying to do anything at all – that how the U.S. military REALLY IS…
After Congress repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” you’d think the Left would finally view the US Marines as tolerant noble good guys. The critics attacking Battle: LA for being (gasp) pro-military proves that theory wrong.
Just a reminder that it’s foolish to appease the Left since they will STILL call you bigoted, dumb, and savage.
I doubt that all the cheering has to do with the audiences rooting for the heroic, noble, selfless Marines, but is because people like to see [expletive] get blown up. We also like to identify with one side or the other when [expletive] is getting blown up. (This is just a cowboys and indians picture with tech.) In the movies, we get attacked and fight back against the bad guy invaders; in real life, we invade other lands and we call the people there who fight back against the invaders (us) as “insurgents” or “savages” or “terrorists” and therefore our killing them is not seen as what it is–murder–but is justified as us “defending ourselves.”
Let me guess, Robert1014, you’re a liberal screenwriter, right? Or producer, director, etc., etc.
The people in the audience with me were cheering our military. The people who don’t feel inclined to do the same probably aren’t going to see the movie since they actually believe what Ebert said.
If the aliens had been portrayed as non-belligerent and misunderstood visitors; and the Marines portrayed as shoot first, merciless cold-blooded killers; then reviewers would have given Battle L.A. dozens of glowing reviews.
I went to see the movie yesterday, and it is one kick-ass thrill ride; a kind of cross between Black Hawk Down and Signs.
Can’t wait to see it again, or until it comes to DVD.
The movie was decent and entertaining. It wasn’t Oscar material, but the action sequences were intense and more realistic than you’d see in most alien invasion movies, and the marines were honorable men doing what they do best. I didn’t expect anything more than that. It was a somewhat better version of the formula made famous by Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer: action-filled and patriotic.
Call it “emotionally manipulative” if you want, but all stories are: they’re structured to make you feel a certain way. What lefty critics mean by it in this case is that they were (in a rare instance for a Hollywood movie) being told to feel a way they didn’t *want* to feel. Welcome to what conservatives have to deal with every day, Roger Ebert.
The movie does have structural and pacing problems. I didn’t giggle at any of the dialogue (I’d need some examples of this, since the movie was, save for a few moments of levity, incredibly serious), but it had moments of characters being stupid for the sake of plot. Again, nothing new with a Hollywood movie.
It works as a rousing action movie. So, no, Ebert’s desire to see the Marines the bad guy in the movie didn’t turn out. The movie had an unambiguous enemy. It’s about *fricking aliens*. Even in their popcorn entertainment, Liberals need to have their ideological egos stroked. Sad, sad, sad.
Where did Ebert express a desire to see the Marines depicted as bad guys? His critique of the movie was based entirely on what he viewed as its deficiencies as a movie. Can you show specifically where Ebert’s review seems ideologically motivated?
Please don’t pick on robert1014! He/she is entitled to his/her views and opinions. I think part of what he/she said is correct in making this film “simplistic”(my term) as “cowboy v. indian” (his/her term).
It IS simplistic. It IS (as he/she states) us v. them…and it seems to work in spades! I want to see it.
robert1014
Ebert’s bias,(to me) shows when he couldn’t even be bothered to get several of the plot points he mentions correctly. Specifically the reason the Marine unit was sent into Santa Monica,(it was not to defeat the aliens). Also what the large ship was.
Quite honestly his review sounded like he didn’t even see the film, more like someone else saw it for him and he merely finessed it up.
What the name robert1014 clearly demonstrates is that not everyone can take the same thing away from a movie. Whoever he or she is either didn’t see the film as most of you did or did and refuses to admit it. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. This film made money this weekend. Talk like this is going to help it make money next weekend and, in a few years, we will perhaps see similar fare, that most likely won’t be done as well.
And robert1014, its ok to not like the exact same thing as everyone else. That’s the beauty of a diverse world. We all have different tastes. I mean, Christian apparently didn’t like it that much either. He just doesn’t see the point in calling people who do idiots. As he alluded to on another blog posting, doing so only showcases your own bigotry.
Drewster, I didn’t even address whether people should be criticized for their tastes. I simply disputed that Ebert’s review reveals any bias whatsoever toward the Marines, or any wish to see them depicted as bad guys. I defy anyone to show where Ebert has done this.
I think robert1014 is 100% correct. To Ebert:
Democrat is in the White House….so…Marines (Jar Heads) are semi-good.
Republican is in the White House…so Marines are evil.
Since Obama is president, Ebert can’t hate ‘Obama’s troops’. He will instead trash any film sight unseen with any hint of patriotism.
I could be wrong…and I often am. My point here is what movie (NOT depicting Nazis) did Ebert like that showed American troops in a positive light?
Just asking…
Just got back from seeing Battle:LA and LOVED IT!!!!! Makes me proud of our military. With the Box Office Gross being 36 million I think this is the first of many pro military, pro american movies that we wil see.
Semper Fi
Ebert’s actual reviews:
Green Zone: 4 stars
Redacted: 3.5 stars
Rendition: 4 stars
Farenheit 911: 3.5 stars
W: 4 stars
Battle LA: 1/2 star
Yeah… he’s consistent.
I saw it Friday night, great movie if you can get past the crappy shaky cam.
I would love to discuss with all the flaming liberals who reviewed the moives where they get their notions of how our forces fight on a daily basis. Watch Youtube and simply enter Iraq or Afghanistan Combat and you can see squads reacting under fire. I can forgive their shaky cams since they are mounting the camera on their helmets or carrying them while being shot at.
Robert1014 is either incredibly dense or has never read any of the reviews of movies that Ebert actually liked. I never said Ebert’s review of the movie wanted the marines to be the bad guys, but it’s clear that’s what Ebert wants to see by the reviews he gives to other movies which happen to have marines in them. Ebert likes it when the marines and the US government are the bad guys. They aren’t the bad guy in this movie, hence his extreme disdain for the movie and anyone who enjoyed it for what it was. I thought the review was ideological even by itself, but when you put it in the context of his very long history of reviews, it’s even more clearly ideological.
Robert1014 bettin you last name is Ebert
Jeez…please let up on robert1014, folks. The poor person is merely reflecting on his take of Ebert’s review of this movie. I don’t read Ebert’s reviews anymore so I personally don’t care too much, but lets not make him/her never post again, either.
i do not give a [expletive] if u think it was a right wing movie, im a libral and i think that was one of the best movies of 2010 period. call me dumb, uneducated about movies, idgf but it had kick ass action and a good plot, great actors, and it was moving emotioly, and hello GREAT music. thats all i gots to say peace
Why do we have to bash our troops like this? Did we forget that they r dying so that we don’t get blown up over here? If the military wasnt trying to hunt down terrorist theyd be over here hunting us down, On topic with the movie now: If there was an alien invasion would we know much about them in the first 24 hours? HELL NO!! This movie is the first 24+ hours of the invasion, they r an ALIEN species, and all we know is they want us dead and they want our water! To all the leftist who dislike this movie because it doesnt “show the humans as the bad guys” shame on you. Ya we are distructive so join politics to change us! Its rediculous that we have to get so poliotical over an action movie that is supporting the courage and bravery those marines and other branches have every day! For once cant we support our troops instead of being a bunch of ungreatful spoiled brats? They fight for our freedom and all we do is piss on them with out having the courtesy of calling it rain!
Saw it. Loved it. Simple as that. My movie tastes vary greatly. I’m not a one sided movie goer. Good fun is good fun and this movie was simply that, good fun. On and for the record. Ebert is a joke. The King’s Speech, The Fighter, The Social Network .. yes. Excellent movies each one. But so is this. For what it is. Action. Explosions. A cookie cutter team getting things done. Pure Awesome. Oh yeah, again. Ebert is a joke.
Ok guys!! It’s funny how a Hollywood PG13 movie turns so political. It is entertainment. It is very stupid to make a political comparison of a movie which was mainly done to entertain. This movie will not change anyones vote in the next elections. If you see it as propaganda then maybe you are just too paranoid and simply a fanatic and political extremist, left or right. Why can’t everyone be normal people?
Just got back from watching it with my gf … halfway through the movie we were both ready to vomit a little at the gratuitous US military, ie., Marine Corp promotion.
We were hoping it was going to be good enough and it seemed to be heading that way once the action started but by the time they met up with the stranded USAF soldier and others the probability of it all started losing us. When they made it to the ransacked FOB, we were so detached because it became so “out there” we started questioning the likelyhood of events / dialog. But what really killed it for us is when Eckhart rapelled from the chopper with everyone else following during their extraction, our eyes started rolling and we started making snarky comments to each other. The rest of the movie after that point rivaled the reality of “Alice In Wonderland”.
We don’t have a problem with a film depicting our military in a good light ( I served in the USAF, her dad is a retired Army Colonel) but when you make a scenario movie that is supposed to take place in our day and age then SKEW our reality / human nature / mortality to give the hero(s) an advantage, the story loses believeability. Combine that with an overt pro-Marine message and now you have a ridiculous propaganda movie.
Four thumbs down we’re afraid …