Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:05 am



Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
 Battle: Los Angeles 

What grade would you give this film?
A 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
B 31%  31%  [ 4 ]
C 31%  31%  [ 4 ]
D 38%  38%  [ 5 ]
F 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 13

 Battle: Los Angeles 
Author Message
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19700
Location: ville-marie
Post Battle: Los Angeles
Battle: Los Angeles

Image

Quote:
Battle: Los Angeles (also known as Battle: LA and World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles) is a 2011 action science fiction film directed by Jonathan Liebesman, and starring Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Peña, Nzinga Blake, Ne-Yo, and Bridget Moynahan. Released in March 2011, the film is set in modern day Los Angeles and follows a platoon of Marines and Airmen during a global alien invasion. The events of the film are inspired by The Battle of Los Angeles, a falsely suspected air raid of Los Angeles that took place during World War II.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:32 am
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 11015
Location: Warren Theatre Oklahoma
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
BATTLE LA

Caught a screening of this last night and it was full to the max. Almost 400 seats were occupied. I didn't know what to expect but I heard one person mention it was parts D9/Skyline and something else.

I enjoyed the opening and the slow buildup to the action but then when the action came it was all to limited and confined. I think the best action piece was the firefight on the freeway. Also, there was way to much dialogue in this film for me. I wanted action and got alot more preachin'. Maybe it was because they had to many characters with names that they were trying to get us to care for and I could have done without the family of civilians as well.
I thought Eckart did a fine job and the visual effects were good enough for me but they still didn't really show much action overall.

In the end, I was a bit let down/disappointed with the film.

Grade - C

_________________
2009 World of KJ Fantasy Football World Champion
Team MVP : Peyton Manning : Record 11-5 : Points 2669.00
[b]FREE KORRGAN

45TH PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A. DONALD J. TRUMP
#MAGA #KAG!
10,000 post achieved on - Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:49 pm


Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Profile
Pure Phase
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am
Posts: 34865
Location: Maryland
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Battle: Los Angeles is not a total wash, but it's also far from a success. Directed by Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls), Roland Emmerich on a tighter budget, the film centers on a small group of Marines fighting extraterrestrial invaders on the streets of southern California's most populous city. The group is led by Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart, above the material, but surely well-compensated), a retiring staff sergeant haunted by the loss of several men under his command in Iraq. Each character, interchangeable in general, is given one or two traits during the first act: one of the men is engaged, another enlisted at seventeen and is teased for maybe being a virgin, etc. Bridget Moynahan, amongst other recognizable faces, shows up later. Her character is named...I forget, but she's a veterinarian (helpful during an alien autopsy sequence).

Best described as Independence Day meets Black Hawk Down, Battle: Los Angeles is often exciting to watch, but far too empty-headed and nondescript to linger in the mind once it's over. It never inspires awe or terror the way Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds did at its best, nor does it have the sociopolitical depth of the Oscar-nominated District 9. It's just a passable roller coaster ride, shot hand-held and untidily by Lukas Ettlin (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) and cut rapid-fire by Christian Wagner (Face/Off).

Besides its wafer-thin storytelling, which limits the film's potential in general, its largest problem is its two-hour length, at least 20 minutes too long. What appeal there is has worn rather thin by the time the film lumbers to the finish line. It also has a strange, fairly unnecessary in media res opening. The best section are the first 30 minutes once the actual battle has begun. The early glimpses of the aliens, for example, are creepy and handled well by Liebesman.

C

_________________
ImageImageImage

1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game


Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:42 pm
Profile
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
It was awesome.


Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:08 am
Profile
Pure Phase
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am
Posts: 34865
Location: Maryland
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Was I the only one bothered by those first five minutes? :P What was the point of opening with them going into battle and then flashing back to a day earlier?

_________________
ImageImageImage

1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game


Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:35 am
Profile
 

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:48 am
Posts: 6245
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
IT'S INTENSE (just guessing.)

_________________
Mr. R wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think threatening violence against people is perfectly okay because you feel offended by their words, so that's kind of telling in itself.

Exactly. If they don't know how to behave, and feel OK offending others, they get their ass kicked, so they'll think next time before opening their rotten mouths.


Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:12 am
Profile
Let's Call It A Bromance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:22 pm
Posts: 12333
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Battle: Los Angeles had the potential to be good but what results is just a real piece of shit. Visually, the film does a good job but the story is just not there. What made District 9 and Cloverfield work is that we were able to get a sense of where everything was going while instilling that fear into the viewer's mind. All that is placed here is just a game going from place to place. Go in one place, kill the aliens, move on. Go on the street, kill the aliens, go to the next street. Sure they had some civilians with them that are freaked out, but not enough time is left centering on them. There is also way too much bickering between the members that the film turns into a "let's do this for our country and avenge our fallen's death" bullshit. There sure is a smart base with these guys though when they aren't preparing for a meteor shower coming, let alone acknowledge it, the day before it happens when it is all over the news. Aaron Eckhart deserves better. Plus, I'm really tired of Michelle Rodriguez's mad ass killer chick actions. She just the same thing in every film. Just skip this, please. 1/2*


Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:04 am
Profile WWW
Rachel McAdams Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 13798
Location: New York, NY
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
A pretty standard, entertaining action flick that works best when none of the characters speak. The dialogue alternates from serviceable to ridiculously bad, and Aaron Eckhart's big "emotional" speech near the end of the film is one of the most unintentionally hilarious movie moments I've seen in quite some time. There's next to no character development and the film basically works as a filmed video game. Still, it delivers what you'd expect from the genre and I had a decent time. B-/C+


Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:17 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Affiliate

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:41 am
Posts: 121
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
2/5

Starts out promising, then goes downhill from there.

_________________
http://wildbillmovies.com


Sat Mar 12, 2011 3:17 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12117
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
I had fun with it.

_________________
This is why I'm always broke.


Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:04 am
Profile YIM
A very honest-hearted fellow
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Other than the extremely annoying shaking camera, which gave me a headache that required a nap to cure, I enjoyed it. It could have been a little shorter. Perhaps its greatest asset was that it clearly loved the Marine Corp. and had a deep respect for the things the Marine's stand for.


Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:04 pm
Profile WWW
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 8:30 am
Posts: 7034
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
jmovies wrote:
Battle: Los Angeles had the potential to be good but what results is just a real piece of shit. Visually, the film does a good job but the story is just not there. What made District 9 and Cloverfield work is that we were able to get a sense of where everything was going while instilling that fear into the viewer's mind. All that is placed here is just a game going from place to place. Go in one place, kill the aliens, move on. Go on the street, kill the aliens, go to the next street. Sure they had some civilians with them that are freaked out, but not enough time is left centering on them. There is also way too much bickering between the members that the film turns into a "let's do this for our country and avenge our fallen's death" bullshit. There sure is a smart base with these guys though when they aren't preparing for a meteor shower coming, let alone acknowledge it, the day before it happens when it is all over the news. Aaron Eckhart deserves better. Plus, I'm really tired of Michelle Rodriguez's mad ass killer chick actions. She just the same thing in every film. Just skip this, please. 1/2*


I'm starting to think you would be great as one of those film bloggers.

It's almost boring to see what you like and dislike as it's artificial in praise as well as criticism.

But, that's just my opinion.

Anyway, the movie itself, it wasn't that great but it wasn't bad either.

Intense is right as many have mentioned, and I'm not sure it really follows up on many cliches as was purported by critics. It isn't original but it's hardly unoriginal.

Like Paul earlier this year, some parts work and some don't and so though I enjoyed it, it's too uneven for me to like it more than I do. It's not as political and tight as District 9 but it isn't an exercise in brainlessness either. The tragedy that struck Japan added a new dimension for me whilst seeing this as well so added more depth than might have been there.

A solid effort and though I wished for more money shots around the world and of L.A. I don't think the movie was aiming for that sort of wow. It is gritty and probably more realistic than some would suppose it to be.

B

_________________
Calls
Ghost Rider + Clash of the Titans = 2x Wrath of the Titans + Ghost Rider 2
Lorax over Despicable Me
Men in Black 3 Under 100m
Madagascar 3 Under 100m
Rise of the Guardians over 250m


Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:27 pm
Profile WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 33474
Location: Minnesota
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Currently the worst of the year. It looked so promising from the ads, but it's just a standard mindless action flick with non-stop action that is frankly quite tiresome. I was very bored during this. I didn't care about any of the one-dimensional characters (idiotic dialogue didn't help). Was kind of hoping they'd all die in the end. If you're obsessed with the Call of Duty games you'll probably love it.

4/10 (D+)

_________________
Image


Last edited by Magic Mike on Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:57 am
Profile
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19700
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Call of Duty with aliens. Which means it has a ridiculous plot, shitty dialogue, and mindless love for the Marines. But it's nowhere near as fun to play.

The aliens were really stupid too. Why invade the cities if you're only after the water? They could just hang out in the middle of the ocean and suck it all up.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:58 pm
Profile
Where will you be?

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am
Posts: 11670
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Monotonous action scenes and some truly hideous dialogue make Battle: Los Angeles a misconceived slog. While some of the no-name actors do fine, the recognizable names - Eckhart, Pena, and especially Bridget "I'm a veterenarian" Moyhan- cannot overcome their doofy lines. There's also some neat visuals here, but they're monochromatic and lost in the relentless inanity. Very early on it becomes clear that any semblance of a story is just an excuse for the mouth-breathing "Black Hawk Down... with aliens!" premise. We're supposed to believe a city as enormous as Los Angeles would be totally devoid of any people within a few hours of a surprise alien invasion? That the military would level Santa Monica? That the army would assume invading aliens wouldn't have an air force? And then said air force doesn't fly at night? Then one has to assume that after the aliens have killed every single motherfucker in Los Angeles, one small crew of soldiers can blatantly blow shit up without ever having a single flying saucer fuck their shit up?

But as said, this isn't a movie concerned with the barest bit of logic or sense. The avatars in this jingoistic hoo-ha don't need to sleep, and only get emotional when it involves some whoop-ass. Battle: Los Angeles is timeless like any good piece of war propaganda, and just as clever for demanding its audience stop thinking in order to take it seriously.


Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:24 am
Profile
Aspiring Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Posts: 47
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
D+

What really annoyed me was the lack of build-up of the invasion itself. So many missed opportunities there. All of the city was evacuating and the chaos of such a large city trying to empty could've generated some intense sequences. Liebesman could've utilised his location a lot more, as he did on the posters - for example the shots of the surfers watching as the "meteors" crash into the water or them shooting over the city's gridlocked highways were amazing, however we barely get a glimpse of that even happening in the movie. All this adds up to an invasion movie that never really gives us a sense of the scope and terror of the situation, thus it failed near immediately in my books. Liebesman may have wanted us thrown into the middle of the action like the soldiers are, but all the movie becomes then is a standard "shoot-'em-up-with-happy-ending" action flick that misses its invasion plot potential. Imagine War of the Worlds without the terrifying sequence where the sky does all kinds of crazy shit and the Tripod rises for the first time. Now that was suspenseful. Perhaps Battle: Los Angeles should've been seen from the eyes of a member of the LA public rather than the soldier characters.

The dialogue and acting are just awful. This is action writing at its very worst. The characters are completely one-dimensional - the staff sergeant with a checkered past, the angry black guy, the friendly black guy, the guy with a pregnant girlfriend, the lone girl who kicks ass, the likable-but-inexperienced lieutenant who'll no doubt sacrifice himself for his crew half-way through the movie (after giving his next-in-command a gift to pass onto wife - oh please, someone make it stop, it hurts) - and the performances are bad in general. Only Michelle Rodriguez really comes out unscathed. The audience is treated to a number of cliched scenes where soldiers scream at each other, saying things like, "WE'RE NOT LEAVING THIS MAN BEHIND!" and "YOU CAN DO IT SIR! DON'T GIVE UP NOW SIR!", none of which ever feels genuine. Most embarrassingly is Aaron Eckhart's heroic monologues, the most cringe-worthy being the scene where he talks to a son who's father (Michael Pena, who's I'm-just-a-Mexican-dad-doing-what's-best-for-my-kid schtick is tired) has just passed away, about what how "being a soldier means never giving up", and this is after recounting his passed-away crew's personal details and their service ID numbers - it's just terrible, and truly humiliating for such a great actor like Eckhart. What a way to follow up his career-best performance in Rabbit Hole last year. Usually the man has a real eye for a good script.


Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:56 pm
Profile
The Wall
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am
Posts: 16163
Location: Croatia
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
3/10 -> D-

Wow. Was this dumb. It's like one retarded thing happening after another and all wrapped up in puke inducing patriotism.


Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:05 am
Profile WWW
Your Knife, My Back. My Gun, Your Head.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:23 pm
Posts: 2033
Location: Somewhere, USA
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
D+

Battle: LA was doomed with it's "shaky cam" effect, generic dialogue and stupid storyline. The shaky cam was a nice quirk at first, but it got more nerve-wracking as the movie progressed. Sometimes it felt like a videogame rather than a war film.

This is one movie that totally fooled me from it's promo. Should have been alot better.

Aaron Eckhart's performance was really good though, despite his character being cliched out tha ass.


Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:27 pm
Profile
We had our time together
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am
Posts: 13203
Location: Vienna
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
I was bored out of my mind during this one. I'm glad I didn't put myself through this in theaters.


Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:59 am
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 63719
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
This was awful. Good poster, good trailers, but awful movie.

_________________
#RAMBO5 ... 20th SEPTEMBER 2019


Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:33 am
Profile
Don't Dream It, Be It
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 29349
Location: The Graveyard
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
I saw this in theaters unfortunately and can't remember a single thing about it. I don't even remember their being any aliens.

_________________
Japan Box Office
Goodreads


“Gods are great ... but the heart is greater. For it is from our hearts they come, and to our hearts they shall return.”
"Paper is dead without words / Ink idle without a poem / All the world dead without stories."
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”


Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:22 pm
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 63719
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
That's a good point. I also can't remember the aliens. There are aliens in it, but on account of the low budget, I don't think we see them much. I pretty much hated it when I saw. I tried to be positive about it, but it's really not good. The same goes for Skyline; another alien movie released at the time.

_________________
#RAMBO5 ... 20th SEPTEMBER 2019


Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:06 am
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Algren wrote:
That's a good point. I also can't remember the aliens. There are aliens in it, but on account of the low budget, I don't think we see them much. I pretty much hated it when I saw. I tried to be positive about it, but it's really not good. The same goes for Skyline; another alien movie released at the time.


The budget isn't that low. Just look what Disctrict 9 could to with $30 million...

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:32 am
Profile WWW
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 63719
Post Re: Battle: Los Angeles
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Algren wrote:
That's a good point. I also can't remember the aliens. There are aliens in it, but on account of the low budget, I don't think we see them much. I pretty much hated it when I saw. I tried to be positive about it, but it's really not good. The same goes for Skyline; another alien movie released at the time.


The budget isn't that low. Just look what Disctrict 9 could to with $30 million...

Yeah, true.

_________________
#RAMBO5 ... 20th SEPTEMBER 2019


Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:53 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 24 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.