With stars like Aaron Eckhart & Michelle Rodriguez, many would assume the modern day sci-fi/action film “Battle: Los Angeles” would have been successful as a film. However, although being successful at the box office, with many plot holes & lack of character-audience bonds director Jonathan Liebesman’s “Battle: Los Angeles” fails to entertain most audiences & lacks competency. These faults turn a film advertised with promise into a laughable, confusing, & forgettable two hour waste of time.
- Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), a wannabe ex-marine coping with his past squadrons death, learns a marine never stops being a marine in “Battle: Los Angeles.” Upon the arrival of “meteors,” the Earth is thrown into war with an alien race desperate for one of our natural resources: water; killing off the human race to do so. Sergeant Nantz, along with a group of marines that struggle to trust him, is sent on a mission to locate a handful of civilians trapped in a police station before the city is leveled. During the mission, the marines are bombarded with alien fire & joined by a group of military-oriented stragglers; including Technical Sergeant Elena Santos (Michelle Rodriguez). The group successfully reaches the civilians & completes their mission while avoiding alien fire & unmanned droids, but the city is not leveled & the war against the alien race is not over.
- Plot holes are a danger for film makers. Even the slightest plot hole can turn the entire story line into a confusing mess. Unfortunately, the promising “Battle: Los Angeles” is riddled with plot holes, establishing for its viewers how little plot analysis & critical thought went into making this film. First, why would the military send out a group of marines into such a hostile environment for a handful of civilians? There was more death, particularly of useful people such as the marines, than would have occurred even if the city had been leveled. In reality, this factor would surely have been noted & the marines would never have been sent out & wasted like they were in this film. Second, when a movie is to feature aliens, film makers have to use a lot of critical thought & planning. Although alien life is completely unknown, common sense easily comes into play. If aliens have the technology to detect life & natural resources on extremely distant planets, travel faster than light speed to distant planets, orchestrate a devastating attack, suck Earth’s oceans dry, track & block radio signals, control unmanned droids, etc. then why do they lack the ability to communicate & resemble lesser complex beings than humans? This can simply be attributed to the effort of film makers marketing their film by creating intriguing aliens that are eye-pleasing, yet mindlessly created. Further more, if the alien’s have the technology to locate & contact other life, why haven’t they? & if they do have such technology, why be so ruthless & barbaric as to wage a war over resources that can possibly be shared? Peaceful or deceptive contact would have been much more effective. Peaceful contact could have established treaties & for all the aliens know, we could have a more effective way to create water or be much stronger than they are. Surely their military would have considered such. Deceptive contact would have allowed the aliens to learn our weaknesses & instantly defeat us. However, once again, the technologically advanced alien race falls short of intelligence. In fact, why wage war when an uninhabited celestial body, like Jupiter’s moon Europa, contains liquid water itself? With the advanced technology these aliens possess, they surely could have found Europa & others like it. The lack of intelligence with advanced technology shown by the alien race is the film creators efforts to show man’s superiority, yet establish interest to market the film. However, these plot holes created completely destroy the purpose of “Battle: Los Angeles” simply using common sense. These many plot holes create a story line full of humility & lacking continuity.
- In order for a movie to establish a bond with it’s audience, film makers need to develop characters that are interesting & that the audience can relate to. “Battle:Los Angeles” tries, but fails to establish character-audience relation. The characters other than Sergeant Nantz are extremely underdeveloped & establish little to no audience connection. Sergeant Nantz can only be related to by those with knowledge & interest in the military that also lack personality. Even the lovable badass Michelle Rodriguez’s character can sparsely be related to & does not live up to her previous roles. The only possibility of mass character-audience relation in “Battle: Los Angeles” is the civilians which are the most underdeveloped characters of all. Unfortunately, “Battle: Los Angeles’s” creators did not forget about this key film making element; they simply failed to deliver it. There were multiple efforts to create a bond between the film’s characters & its audience members, – a marine writing a note to his wife to be delivered if he dies, a civilian child’s father dying heroically, etc – but the lack of character development inhibited a bond from being created. This failure to establish a bond between characters & the audience turns “Battle: Los Angeles” into a mindless film with entertainment only found in special effects. All of this creates a film that will quickly be forgotten after release & never awarded.
- “Battle: Los Angeles” is a film that successfully fails as a work. Although bringing in money at the box office, the film’s marketing techniques were the only attributing factor to such; being filled with many plot holes & lacking character-audience relation. “Battle: Los Angeles” is a mindless form of entertainment. The only audience capable of enjoying this film is one that consists of people that lack the ability to critically think or can somehow possibly relate to it’s underdeveloped characters.