I think the perspective of the director of this film is different:
typical Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters such as the Battle of Los Angeles, Independence Day, etc., everyone who resisted the aliens still rated and recognized it because they were closer to the narrative methods we are familiar with, such as very The obvious three-act structure, with a big despair and climactic reversal at the end, brings a sense of satisfaction, and everyone agrees.
Another common feature of these films is that the characters have a growth arc and a process of change, so it's very human, like the Sergeant Major in the Battle of Los Angeles, who decided not to keep anyone.
The third feature is that the result is basically that the bad guys are killed.
But the creators of Skyline didn't think so,
1) The alien invasion is most likely to end in the destruction of human beings on Earth, and the possibility is not less than 99%
2) The process of destruction is accompanied by fierce air battles and battles of human technology, heroic, but in the end It may be invalid, so there are basically no character arcs in two days.
3) The possibility of reversal is unlikely, so don’t climax and syllogism
4) The short-term destruction process shows obvious features of fragmented events
5) There are not many advance signs and detection, so the first act is also not very true. This is also the reason why many fans say it lacks foreshadowing.
But if you think about a real alien invasion, I'd guess the experience is closer to this than the alien's ridiculous single mothership structure shoots down and destroys (Battle of Los Angeles) or aliens get hit with a human computer virus (?! Yes is ridiculous).
In fact, this category of science fiction films expresses human fears about technology and alien exploration. In this sense, this film is very successful and the ending is black. And the special effects far exceeded the budget of a film several times larger than his.
View more about Skyline reviews
