http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48817 I like this review. If this is what the film is, then I'll be happy.
getting hammered on the tomato meter... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battle-los-angeles/ i'll pass
Same critics on tomato rate the Justin Beiber movie a fresh pick. You be the judge. I have almost completely lost all faith in any critic of movies. Those same critics will always, and I mean always lose sight of the fact that sometimes movies are NOT supposed to be the wittiest, most cerebral forms of art. Which is why horror movies always score low, and its tough for sci fi flicks to do well with them. But I dare you to see them ever blast a disney/pixar flick.
The few reviews I have read on it both compared it to Black Hawk Down style action which sounds pretty badass
This. For movies like this, the audience rating has more bearing to me than the critic ratings. Actually now that I think about it, I never read any critic reviews and usually only look at how the the audience rates the movie.
Yea I agree. In terms of what I expect from a movie after reading reviews, user reviews seem to be a more accurate portrayal of how I would probably rate a movie. Whenever I read a critics review, I bump it up a whole letter grade or star.
I saw it last night at a midnight screening. No spoilers in here, but just in case: Spoiler The battle and action are very intense... feels very much like a war movie. The story doesn't strike me as the greatest, but it's not terrible. I think it's character development where it's weak. Some dizzying camera bounces too. But for some reason it didn't kill it for me... the realism of it kept my interest. I say this in no way to dehumanize what is going on in Japan, but it was surreal to see the footage from Japan this morning after going to see Battle LA last night. It almost took me a second to understand the magnitude of what is going on there because some of the visuals are very similar. Very scary ... heart goes out to all those who were impacted by the quake.
just got back from seeing at cinemark in webster. if any of you have gone to the movies and have seen that "three doors down" extended commercial advertising the marines that comes on before the movie previews, well... it's kinda like that with aliens in it. i'd give it a 45%.
Eh, sometimes this is definitely the case, but not always. District 9 for example scored very highly, and I consider that a good sci fi flick. Same for Moon. I mean, Machete, which isn't exactly a cerebral form of art, scored like a 70 or 80. Sometimes you can be a good kickass movie and still be a good 'film'. Though sometimes I agree; just the ass kicking would be enough.
I don't think this counts as sci-fi given that its based on true events, with added dramatization. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xnLIxbAsnzE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This seems to be a common theme in the negative reviews (lack of character dev), but the actual war part is really good. I can handle lack of character development in a war movie. /crosses fingers...
The same percentage of viewers that liked Battle LA liked Transformers 2. I don't trust the public on this one. I may check it out when I'm in the mood to watch stuff blow up with people yelling into a shaky cam, but other than that, I'm not expecting much. Critics do sometimes judge one-dimensional movies more harshly, because they have come to appreciate and even demand depth, but even *good* action/horror movies still get decent review numbers. At least the alien robots won't have annoying personalities.
First let me say, I never wanted to see any of the Transformers movies. I eventually watched part of the 2nd Transformer movie on HBO one night. I was right about that one. It sucked. Having said that, I recommend Battle LA. ESPECIALLY if what you're looking for is non stop action in a war setting. The comparison in that manner to Black Hawk Down is very well taken. Obviously, its not nearly as serious as one is a stupid alien movie while another is a recreation of an actual military encounter. But in terms of small arm's fights, tension, and plain ole wall to wall movie action....this film has got it. Think of it as a cross between BHD and Independence Day with a gritty somewhat realistic feel.
I know this movie suck but it better not suck as badly as 2012 and Transformers 2. I'm a big Sci-fi guy and love big budget SFX especially on the big screen. Looking forward to watching it with UltraAVX. They have one in my city and it's freaking sweet. Sounds so freaking amazing that your whole seat and floor sake. No longer I need to travel far for the IMAX. What I also love about it is that you can now reserve your seats.
Wow. Ebert really laid into it. Half a star out of 4! http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110309/REVIEWS/110309992 "Battle: Los Angeles" is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don't even try to make it more than senseless chaos. Here's a science-fiction film that's an insult to the words "science" and "fiction," and the hyphen in between them. You want to cut it up to clean under your fingernails. Meteors fall to Earth near the coasts of the world's major cities (and in Ireland's Dingle Bay — that meteor must have strayed off course). They contain alien troops, which march up from the beach with their weapons of war and attack mankind. No reason is given for this, although it's mentioned they may want our water. We meet the members of a Marine platoon, and its battle-scarred Staff Sgt. Nantz (Aaron Eckhart). They're helicoptered into Santa Monica and apparently defeat the aliens. Since all of Los Angeles is frequently seen in flames, it's not entirely clear how the Santa Monica action is crucial, but apparently it is. The aliens are hilarious. Do they give Razzies for special effects? They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby. As the Marines use their combat knives to carve into the aliens, they find one layer after another of icky gelatinous pus-filled goo. Luckily, the other aliens are mostly seen in long shot, where they look like stick figures whipped up by apprentice animators. Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Nantz, a 20-year veteran who has something shady in his record, which people keep referring to, although screenwriter Christopher Bertolini is too cagey to come right out and describe it. Never mind. Eckhart is perfectly cast, and let the word go forth that he makes one hell of a great-looking action hero. He is also a fine actor, but acting skills are not required from anyone in this movie. The dialogue consists almost entirely of terse screams: Watch it! Incoming! Move! Look out! Fire! Move! The only characters I re*member having four sentences in a row are the anchors on cable news. Although the platoon includes the usual buffet of ethnicities, including Latinos, Asians and a Nigerian surgeon, none of them get much more than a word or two in a row, so as characters, they're all placeholders. You gotta see the alien battleships in this movie. They seem to have been assembled by the proverbial tornado blowing through a junkyard. They're aggressively ugly and cluttered, the product of a planet where design has not been discovered and even the Coke bottles must look like pincushions. Although these ships presumably arrived inside the meteors, one in particular exhibits uncanny versatility, by rising up from the Earth before the very eyes of the startled Marines. How, you may ask, did it tunnel for 10 or 12 blocks under Santa Monica to the battle lines at Lincoln Boulevard? There is a lazy editing style in action movies these days that assumes nothing need make any sense visually. In a good movie, we understand where the heroes are, and where their opponents are, and why, and when they fire on each other, we understand the geometry. In a mess like this, the frame is filled with flashes and explosions and shots so brief that nothing makes sense. From time to time, there'll be a closeup of Aaron Eckhart screaming something, for example, and on either side of that shot, there will be unrelated shots of incomprehensible action. When I think of the elegant construction of something like "Gunfight at the OK Corral," I want to rend the hair from my head and weep bitter tears of despair. Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either ignorant of, or indifferent to. Yet he is given millions of dollars to produce this assault on the attention span of a generation. Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart.
I thought it was pretty good... Critics were pretty harsh on this movie but it thought it had a great story along with never-ending action. Too lazy to write a review on my thoughts but I'd definitely recommend it. It's certainly not as bad as a lot of critics made it out to be. If there was one nitpick, it was probably that it was a little long. That's about it.
Returning from viewing the movie, I'll give it a score of 90 or 3 and 1/2 stars!!! Will watch it again!
