cricketbat Watching Battle: Los Angeles is like watching someone else play a first-person shooter. It features too many characters to care about, and the majority of dialogue consists of "GO! GO! GO! *BANG!* *BANG!* *BANG!*" I will give the movie credit for making the aliens look unique and menacing, but, other than that, this movie is nothing but a string of predictable clichés.

dting2010 This movie is much better than everyone says. Aaron Eckhart really embraces his role as a worn out staff sergeant in the Marines. I don't think anyone should have imagined this would be best picture of the year. It is like someone already wrote "Blackhawk Down with aliens."

sddavis63 It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. If you're really into the action stuff - and if you are, that's great - you'll love this movie. There's lots of action in this. Lots of gunfights, lots of combat. What was believed to be a meteor shower actually turned out to be aliens whose ships land in the oceans and start to attack 20 earth cities. Obviously, this movie centres on the battle for Los Angeles, basically following a platoon of US Marines as they do battle with the bad guys from outer space and try to protect a few civilians they come across while doing so. Beyond that there's no real plot or story to this. We really don't learn very much about the aliens or why they were attacking - except that they wanted our water. It reminded me a little bit of War of the Worlds - although that (actually both movie versions) was better.The characters really aren't especially fleshed out or interesting. We get a bit of a backstory on Staff Sargeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhardt.) He had led a platoon in Afghanistan or Iraq (can't remember if it was named specifically) and lost some men. He blames himself for their loss and was getting ready to retire until he was sent back into battle with the platoon fighting the alien invaders. Fortunately for him the brother of one of the men he lost was in the same platoon. So there's a bit of interplay there, some mistrust, some respect having to be re-earned. But basically this was about the battle. It went on for too long. It was well portrayed, but after a while I started to lose interest, to be honest, because it didn't really seem to be going anywhere, and you knew eventually where it would have to go - these aliens would have to be defeated. So, for about half the movie I was paying attention; then my mind did begin to wander a bit as I waited for the end.What it comes right down to is that this is pretty standard stuff about an alien invasion of earth. There's nothing especially unique about it to capture or hold your attention. If you like non-stop battles with invaders from outer space - this is your kind of movie. For me: 4/10

Matt McWhirter When I went to go see it the first time opening night, had I wrote my review then, I might of given it 9 stars. Simply because the trailer made me think it was going to be a cheesy, unrealistic sci-fi film such as what Michael Bay and Emmerich put out. I'm going to try not to spoil anything...but as some of the things I'm about to write were things I had no idea would even be in the movie; I'm going to assume, in some degree, they could be 'Spoilers', so with that, consider it a fair spoiler warning.After reading many of the 1 star reviews, it seems the 'between the lines' reason is that they hate the military and any movies that attempt to portray it realistically. If this describes (you), I would advise skipping this review. -- Yes I served. And if that alone makes you hate me, then...do whatever makes you happy. Moving on with the review:Ironically, I served in the same battalion and regiment featured in this movie (2/5 1st Mar Div). I happened to enjoy it the first time simply because I wasn't expecting any of the details that they did get right. Correct unit/rank structure, correct uniforms (mostly), correct terminology. It was the first time hearing any of it in an alien film. And it made the invasion threat feel that much more real. The language in the opening newscast was as real as it gets. -- But it wasn't enough to cover its shortcomings.I also rated the movie soundtrack by Brian Tyler 10/10 stars. It's so good, one can close their eyes and imagine the movie this should have been. Which brings me to my criticisms...The 'shaky cam'...I have to agree with the critics. While combat is indeed a chaotic environment, I'll cite the beginning of Saving Private Ryan as an example of how to do it....without overdoing it. Same with Black Hawk Down...and imho, they should of asked Ridley Scott's help in making this.Regarding what else the movie was trying to be, which was a decent attempt at an authentic war movie focused on a single platoon... they could of did a better job with a 10-16 episode TV series like Band of Brothers, Pacific or Six. When it comes to war movies that start and end in under 2 hours...there's no real way to avoid pacing and character development that feels rushed. The only other criticisms are extremely minor. As someone who served in 2/5...we don't go around yelling "retreat hell" everywhere we go. Everything from how the Chinooks flew over enemy-held territory with anti-air (when they didn't have to) and how the platoon walked into several ambushes they way they did...it killed the suspension of disbelief that these were supposed to be trained 0311 and 0331 Marines. Even someone like 2nd LT Martinez would of known better than to maneuver out in the open, behind enemy lines. SSGT Nance...while he has the correct rank for a platoon sergeant, anyone with close to 20 years in Marine Corps would likely be at least an E8 than an E6. -- Again, these are minor details.I appreciate what the movie was trying to do, which is why I give it 6 stars; but with a bit more effort this could have been a movie worthy of 10. Military accuracy might not mean anything (or might anger) others that didn't serve or hate the military, but I happened to appreciate it and wish more movies would make the effort.