Hey, everybody—it’s time for the Battle: Los Angeles installment of Count the Clichés! Here we go: (1) A shot of one guy in the middle of combat while everything around him goes silent and in slow motion? Check. (2) Guy runs out of rifle ammo and then gruffly pulls out his pistol to fight off the enemy? Check. (3) Shot of guy cowering with his hands clasped over his ears and crying as the gunfire rages? Check. (4) Reluctant veteran, gun-shy sergeant who commanded a botched mission is forced back into leadership, but the troops don’t trust him? Check. (5) Michelle Rodriguez as a tough Latina soldier? Check!!!
Battle: Los Angeles is basically an action-adventure in the guise of a sci-fi thriller, and the battle scenes are its only worthwhile minutes. Unfortunately, those minutes are few and far between. The great special effects you’ve likely seen in the previews? Multiply the length of that commercial by, say, 15 times, and that’s all of Battle that’s worth watching. In between are filler scenes and a clichéd plot seemingly hodgepodged from every action/adventure/war film ever made. This wouldn’t matter so much if it weren’t for the absolutely excruciating claptrap dialogue, most of which plummets out the mouth of Aaron Eckhart (just when you were starting to like him!).
Examples: “I would go to hell and back for you” (Eckhart’s character to the inept squad leader shortly before he’s killed). “Good luck, rookie” (a combat vet to an FNG the night before the shit hits the fan). “You’re the bravest marine I’ve ever met” (Eckhart’s character to a kid when his civilian dad dies). The phrase “One thing is clear, the world is at war” is used what seems like half a dozen times via voice-over news broadcasts. The few minutes’ worth of enthralling CGI and action are not worth suffering through this schmaltzy, cloying, and ham-fisted piece of shit. Here’s the question: Why is it so hard to combine quality story, acting, and dialogue with quality special effects? District 9 comes to mind, and it should be a role model, but most of the time what we get is another Avatar, Skyline, or 2012. What’s the deal? Do too many assholes get involved when there’s that much money on the line? Directors: Please do better. 
You mentioned District 9. I think last year’s Monsters would qualify for that catagory.
Why can’t fucking Hollywood make a decent Hi-Fi Sci-fi picture anymore. I’m staying home and watching George Pal’s “War of the Worlds”.
@1: That one was decent, but not great. The local businessmen extorting from desperate passers-through and former neighbors, the simplistic and ineffectual government response to the threat, even the monsters: all pretty good. What kinda made that movie suck is that despite some efforts to make you like the main characters, I kept rooting for them to die because there’s really not enough personality or likability in either one to identify with them.
Proof that nationalism and knee jerk patriotism make the best movies.
Michael Bay’s fault
I thought the movie was great. A real popcorn film. Yes, it was full of cliches, but I didn’t expect any less. I laughed at the cheesy lines, and enjoyed the theatrical action. It was a great ride. Too many reviewers are so self-important. Don’t they ever just have fun at the movies? I would totally see this movie again.
You’re wondering why Hollywood can’t make a decent sci-fi movie? I wonder why Hollywood can’t make anything that doesn’t suck donkey cock. And the higher the budget the worse the movie becomes.
I like the use of enemies who are both pure evil and can be blown to itty bits. In a WWII war movie, they’d be Nazis. In a horror movie, they’d be zombies. When your foe is inhuman, the CGI-sky’s the limit! It’s perfect for sci-fi.