Thread: Battle: Los Angeles

i watched it the other night, it was ok, pretty cool.

It sucked.

My take from a previous post:

Just in case the next sentence doesn't make it clear: THERE ARE SOME SPOILERS HERE.

I just got back from watching it and here's the run down:

The good:

Plenty of solid action.
Realistic soldiers.
Great special effects.
As far as a movie with aliens go, it's pretty realistic. The aliens weren't invincible, just hard to kill. They weren't mindless killing machines, either. They pulled their fallen comrades to safety and retreated when necessary.
It was cool to see the war raging in Los Angeles instead of a third-world country that I care less about than what I leave in the toilet.


The bad:

The trailer lied. 98% of the movie is shaky-cam.
The cuts happen way too often. The average shot time couldn't have been more than 5 seconds.
Too many tight shots. Most of the action shots were from a perspective of maybe 10 feet away. You miss so much.
Fuck you Saving Private Ryan! That was a very successful movie that, unfortunately, made every director in Hollywood think you have to shoot every military movie just like it, outlined in the previous three points.
The audio blows. The foley artist should have been fired. There are way too many shots where you couldn't hear the dialog above the environmental noise.
Cliché-or-rama. There were several clichés. The worst of which is the "We can't remotely detonate the explosives that we just planted!" That has to be one of the top three clichés. Not only that, but they did the "I'm mortally wounded, so I'll blow myself up to save you!" easy out. Talk about lazy writing.
Not enough aliens (Ha! Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that!). There isn't one close shot of any moving alien, only the dead ones. Even then, it's usually done in poor lighting. Only long shots or right-up-the-anus shots that only last 1 to 2 seconds.
Way too many soldiers die. Yeah, it's a war movie, but when so many die so early in the movie, it loses its punch and becomes annoying.
The pacing was somewhat bad. It tented to stutter, making the movie drag on and feel awkward at times.

The short version: catch it at manatee if nothing else is playing or catch it on video.

I thought that movie sucked.

Originally Posted by LAM

Apparently not many liked that movie, I thought it was pretty good. I've watched it 3 times over the weekend. I heard it was one big commercial for the Marines a while back, I can see why some might have said that.

I watched that movie last weekend on ppv while they were having the .99 specials. That movie I found out later, which sparked my interest, was that it was taken from an actual event which took place in 1942, in my home town. Over the coast of San Pedro, there was an object which flew over Ft. MacArthur, they pointed the search lights on it and it showed the silhouette of an object of which you and I would call a spaceship and over 1000 rds. were fired over the city. It was in the newspaper that morning.

But, the movie was okay. It allowed me too waste a few hours and forget the phuqed up world I live in.

Originally Posted by IronAddict

I watched that movie last weekend on ppv while they were having the .99 specials. That movie I found out later, which sparked my interest, was that it was taken from an actual event which took place in 1942, in my home town. Over the coast of San Pedro, there was an object which flew over Ft. MacArthur, they pointed the search lights on it and it showed the silhouette of an object of which you and I would call a spaceship and over 1000 rds. were fired over the city. It was in the newspaper that morning.

But, the movie was okay. It allowed me too waste a few hours and forget the phuqed up world I live in.

yeah it was ok, i thought it would be better but..i got a bootleg copy lol.

Thanks, DOMS for the details.

Those OTHERS who thought it was good, ok, or bad, please tel us about the casting, writing and story line, to justify your opinion.

Don't just say, "it was good, ok or bad."

Originally Posted by IronAddict

I watched that movie last weekend on ppv while they were having the .99 specials. That movie I found out later, which sparked my interest, was that it was taken from an actual event which took place in 1942, in my home town. Over the coast of San Pedro, there was an object which flew over Ft. MacArthur, they pointed the search lights on it and it showed the silhouette of an object of which you and I would call a spaceship and over 1000 rds. were fired over the city. It was in the newspaper that morning.

But, the movie was okay. It allowed me too waste a few hours and forget the phuqed up world I live in.

shit that's right I had totally forgotten about that incident. I knew there was something familiar about the topic when I watched it the first time. I've been killing the bong all weekend!

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Thanks, DOMS for the details.

I was looking forward to it. I would have been more forgiving, but that damn shaky-cam! Does a scene between a husband and wife talking in a kitchen really need to be shot in shaky-cam?

Originally Posted by LAM

shit that's right I had totally forgotten about that incident. I knew there was something familiar about the topic when I watched it the first time. I've been killing the bong all weekend!

Nice!

Well, we share the same past time, you long distance toker, you!

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Thanks, DOMS for the details.

Those OTHERS who thought it was good, ok, or bad, please tel us about the casting, writing and story line, to justify your opinion.

Don't just say, "it was good, ok or bad."

Well, whoever that dude was who played the lead role, ran like a girl!

And when he was wearing his Kevlar helmet in the action scenes, I thought he looked like bill maher.

I liked it.

We all know movies are subjective.

I just watched this movie. Battle: Los Angeles was one of, (probably thee) worst movie I've seen in about 3-4 years.

Predictable dialogue, cliches, too much "action," which were constant throughout.

I just checked Rotten Tomatoes and see it got a 39%.

A bit generous.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

We all know movies are subjective.

I just watched this movie. Battle: Los Angeles was one of, (probably thee) worst movie I've seen in about 3-4 years.

Predictable dialogue, cliches, too much "action," which were constant throughout.

I just checked Rotten Tomatoes and see it got a 39%.

A bit generous.

Hey, I never said it was good...

That's why I paid .99!

^ I wasn't busting on you, Iron.

I suppose when this movie went from screenplay to someone willing to invest in it, they did there economic profit model. I'll check the budget to gross receipts later today.

I remember one of the worse movies I've seen (I don't watch a lot of movies) was Gigli with Ben Affleck.

"Gigli" was so bad, you gotta see it.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

^ I wasn't busting on you, Iron.

I suppose when this movie went from screenplay to someone willing to invest in it, they did there economic profit model. I'll check the budget to gross receipts later today.

I remember one of the worse movies I've seen (I don't watch a lot of movies) was Gigli with Ben Affleck.

"Gigli" was so bad, you gotta see it.

Jiggly, with that rican broad?

All her movies suck!

If I were an alien race bent on taking control of another world. Priority targets would be their communications systems, transportation, defense and resources. Odds are the reason for invasion would be for what natural resources we have left. That or slave labor.

I would imagine that a planetary invasion would include a lot of planning and deciding on what targets (comms, trans, defense, resources,) should be of the highest priority. All this would be conducted prior to invasion.

I guess what I'm really driving at here is WHY THE F*CK WOULD ANYONE BEGIN AN INVASION IN LOS ANGELES?!

From a practical standpoint there ain't sh*t there worth taking over.

That's like the aliens from Signs coming to take over Earth but water is there weakness. Humidity you f*cknut M. Night Shamalama-Ding-Dong! I'm sure you didn't study much of the sciences in director school but that's a major flaw in your movie. What a twist!

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Jiggly, with that rican broad?

All her movies suck!

Ben Affleck, Christopher Walken, and a cameo by someone.

Can't remember the rican blond. The movie is, Gigli.

"I'm the bull, you're the cow."

"I'm the bull, you're the cow."

The movie was bad enough to went almost straight to DVD rentals.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

^ I wasn't busting on you, Iron.

I suppose when this movie went from screenplay to someone willing to invest in it, they did there economic profit model. I'll check the budget to gross receipts later today.

I remember one of the worse movies I've seen (I don't watch a lot of movies) was Gigli with Ben Affleck.

"Gigli" was so bad, you gotta see it.

Any movie with Affleck is usually pretty bad, he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. All out all his movies Phantoms is at the top.

Maybe it wasnt Pulp Fiction,,but it was better than alot of the shit out there

Originally Posted by LAM

Apparently not many liked that movie, I thought it was pretty good. I've watched it 3 times over the weekend. I heard it was one big commercial for the Marines a while back, I can see why some might have said that.

I actually enjoyed the movie. I don't know when it happened, but at some point in our recent history, it was decided by the masses that a movie needs to have a deep underlying message, a thought provoking climax, or some sort of mind bending twist to be considered "good".

If you sit through a movie and you are entertained the movie was a success. If you at least sit through a movie and are not bored, then the movie was a marginal success.

I cannot imagine anyone saying this movie was boring. It was overall a very decent action movie. You won't come away from it with some sort of epiphany, but hell, when was it decided that you need to?