So I watched it last night. Enjoyed it. A couple of things that bugged me like the jittery handheld camera shots, but overall thought that it was rather good. After checking the web afterwards, I read nothing but seething reviews???
What's the go? Have I completely lost touch with the understanding of what a quality film should be? Or is it just that movie critics are jerks?
Cheers - SPS
it's a bad movie...crappy end...good idea but badly executed.
I'm sick of reviewers, they always want some movie that's gonna be this huge life changing experience...what ever happened to just sitting down and enjoying yourself for an hour or two.......
I thought it was a great video game--I mean it was basically just an actioner, pretty light on character and plot. I thought it was forgettable, but for 90 minutes or whatever I DID enjoy it. What I didn't enjoy was how it was so flagrantly propogandistic (is that a word?). At a few points I felt like I was watching an Army recruitment video.
I didn't care about the recruitment effort. The movie was really exciting, the alien invasion felt scary and believable, the battles were epic and heroic, special FX and audio were really amazing... I do love the movie for what it is.
And by the way, am I the only one who doesn't care if good guys are american and love their country? Patriotism seems to be a sin nowadays. I'm not American, but as long as the characters are human and show such a human behaviour, I can like them and want them to survive. And being able to give your life to protect your country is admirable, no matter what the colour of the flag is (unless, of course, you take inocent lifes with you)
Interesting point you raise. I'm not American either, Australian, but it's so common place for films to be American that it sometimes seems a bit odd when they're not. Take for example, 28 Days Later. I thought it was pretty cool, but there's definitely moments, for me at least anyway, when it just felt strange listening to the British English. Nothing against the movie, but hearing an American accent appears to be an engrained expectation.Yarko said:
At the end of the day, whoever happens to make the movie deserves to choose how it's heard, no? Just seems to be that most blockbuster films seem to come out of the US.
^ Hollywood is about the only film industry with the money to support the budget for Blockbusters and survive a loss if a movie flops.
I thought it was a good action flick. Not every film needs to be a work of art. It felt a lot like Black Hawk Down with aliens to me. Just a good old fashion shoot 'em up war movie. The handheld camera work didn't bother me, and usually that does. Granted, I did not see the film in the theater.
I'd certainly rather watch this over Independence Day, or War of The Worlds.
I really liked it. I liked how the aliens were portayed. When I saw one alien dragging another fallen alien behind cover, I thought, "Wow. I've never seen that before in an alien movie."
This was not a perfect movie, but I REALLY enjoyed it! I loved that the military weren't portrayed as baby-killers. I liked that it wasn't anti-American. I liked that it didn't try to be something it wasn't. I liked that Michelle Rodriguez, for the first and only time in her career, didn't act like a pissed-off-at-the-world-I-am-woman-and-I-constantly-have-something-to-prove kind of person and you actually FELT something for her... that alone made the movie worth seeing.
The characters might not have had a lot of depth (neither did the story for that matter) but it was exciting and eventful and I really enjoyed it.
SPS said:
JasonCash said:
People have confused the ability to ridicule something with sophisticated taste.
Just because you go into a movie on a mission to shine a big magifying glass on every flaw, doesn't mean you somehow have higher standards.
More likely, their seek and destroy movie watching agendas are keeping them from actually enjoying themselves.
Utterly awful - no plot, no characters, tedious design, boring set-pieces, horrid cinematography. The RPF is the only site I know where this boring POC gets a pass. Very odd.
I enjoyed it for a 'one viewing'
Don't know if I'd ever watch it again, tho.
It was ok. I watched it a second time, same opinion. I dare say that Skyline (similar movie released just before it) had a more interesting plot.
It's no sin to be patriotic...I wish GI JOE had been a flag-waver. Ol' Larry Hama can make my chest swell with pride in my country.Yarko said:
What I object to is being flagrantly emotionally manipulated. It's the same reason I more or less roll my eyes at Saving Private Ryan. They're trying so hard it's almost embarrassing.
Yes, I love my country, passionately.
No, I don't like clunky, didactic, manipulative attempts at evoking it.
I thought this was a great movie. Saw it twice in theaters.
You know, I guess it depends on the topic. There's something dangerous in manipulating patriotism. So I can like Lars Von Trier, who's outrageously, shamefully manipulative, but dislike Saving Private Ryan. My inner "reader of dystopian fiction" starts seeing red flags when I feel like my patriotism is being coerced. I can cry at the beginning of Up but not at the end of Private Ryan. Does that make sense?Larry Young said:
First time at the movies?
Not to say it's ONLY patriotic movies. The Butterfly Effect and Legends of the Fall both made me roll my eyes so hard I thought my head was gonna split in two.
if you thought this movie was bad, watch skyline first. youd think battle la is a masterpiece in comparison.
I value most movie reviewer's opinions: 9 times out of 10 if they hate it I think it's great!JasonCash said:
I thought Battle LA was a pretty enjoyable flick...not a block buster by any means, but fun.
Robert
I just liked that this film was portrayed from a military units viewpoint. More often then not these movies are seen from some civilian who is running around hiding from the aliens and somehow thwarting their plans. Instead this is from a military view so I enjoyed it a lot.
Also don't even compare this to that abortion of a film skyline. I will NEVER willingly watch that movie ever again.
Sure, I understand what you're saying, but I guess from a writing perspective, all storytelling is, at the core, manipulating the emotions in your audience. If the story doesn't invoke a passion of some kind in the audience, why bother telling the story in the first place?cayman shen said:
I would submit that BATTLE: LA did its job on you in that it invoked such a passionate response. That's why it drives me nuts when people talk about movies and books and TV they've consumed and at the end of it say, "meh." That's the biggest insult to storytelling the Peanut Gallery can give.
I watched the trailer and it seems to be a nice movie to change your ideas...
I think I will rent it soon !
Oh I hear you. But it's also the sign of a skilled writer to either a) not be too shamelessly obvious. You don't want the puppet's strings to show. You need willing suspension of even emotional disbelief or else your story is clunky and hackneyed. Or b) be so good the audience doesn't even care it's being played like a violin. Kill Bill comes to mind here. Toy Story 2. The Iron Giant. Yes, I was obviously being played, but the story was so damn good I let it ride. Battle LA is no Iron Giant.Larry Young said:
•*What's "emotional disbelief?"
• I hated KILL BILL VOL. 1 so much I never saw the second one. Talk about the strings showing.
Reply with Quote