Two opposing views of Battle LA

First, Samizdata:

I am not going to tell you much about it: only that it is one of the best SF movies I have seen in a long while and perhaps the best combat movie I have ever seen. The soldiers acted like soldiers. They were competently led by people who were very human and proud to be US Marines.

Go see it, and then tell all your friends about it.

Then David Stratton in the Aus:

The screenplay, credited to Chris Bertolini, is comprised of a quite remarkable collection of cliches, both in terms of plotting and dialogue. It could have been the work of an enthusiastic 12-year-old who has seen too many sci-fi movies, while the camerawork, which lurches drunkenly all over the place from start to finish, could have been the work of his hyperactive younger brother. Harsh words, I know, but Battle: Los Angeles represents everything I loathe about contemporary cinema in that it combines shallowness with ugliness in about equal proportions. It makes Independence Day look like Citizen Kane.

Watching this nonsense after seeing tragic television images of the destruction of Japan somehow made Battle: Los Angeles appear even more meretricious.

I'm going to go with the first review and do my best to see it at the movies. Stratton knows as much about soldiering as I know about ballet. If he hates it, it must be good.