User Avatar Image

Battle Los Angeles was disappointing

posted by Lonnie on - last edited - Viewed by 429 users

Went to see it last night......started off well but it fell into the abyss of cliches.

I wanted the aliens to be alot more sinister and scary, the movie lacked suspense. I won't ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it so I won't tell you what happens, but, man, I resent the $16.50 NZD I paid to see it thats for sure.

47 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Lonnie said: Went to see it last night......started off well but it fell into the abyss of cliches.

    I wanted the aliens to be alot more sinister and scary, the movie lacked suspense. I won't ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it so I won't tell you what happens, but, man, I resent the $16.50 NZD I paid to see it thats for sure.

    Man, I resent you paying $16.50 NZD too. This so called "film" was a s**t storm from day one. It's got a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 34% for goodness sakes! It's upsetting to possess the knowledge that this turgid, sorry waste of celluloid made it to #1 at the box-office. Having said that, I'm glad that you acknowledge that the movie was sub-par at best: it's just a shame that the ticket sales couldn't reflect that.

  • I didn't have high hopes for it so I wasn't dissappointed. I knew it was just going to be an alien invasion attack with a lot of shooting.

    I personally enjoyed it. It had some cool set pieces and the people who I wanted to see live at the end of the movie lived. Although, the movie doesn't really deal too much in character development. I mean, Aaron Eckhart's character was the only real fleshed out character so I did care about him but other than that the rest of them were just fillers. The aliens were unimpressive. Looked like a weird mix of star wars drones and the guys from halo.

    Without giving too much away i would say that the film is average at best. There's really nothing new to be seen here as far as Alien invasion movies are concerned. Aside from Aaron's character there really isn't any devolepment there. The CGI is good but like Jim Vejvoda at ign said in a review of Sucker Punch, "In the age of ubiquitous CGI, do "cool visuals" still have enough pull to warrant recommending a fanboy-friendly movie? No, they don't and especially when there are video games whose visuals are just as cool and boast better stories to boot."

    I tend to agree. CGI has come so far that it's stalled. CGI doesn't WOW anymore. It's the norm. Now, if they actually had built the ships and the aliens (like the life size dinosaurs of Jurassic Park) and had them look and move realistic then yes, I would have been impressed. But CGI, sorry... not impressive anymore.

    I hate to say so many bad things about the film. I did enjoy it. But it's just nothing special.

  • @Rather Dashing said: Of course it was shit.

    Roger Ebert is hardly the Gospel, but on this occasion he is truly preaching from a wise place. Heed his words of warning, or forever endure an eternity of cinematic pap.

    Ye have been warned.

  • In other breaking news, the sky is blue.

  • Another way to have predicted it would suck: It was the highest-grossing film of its respective weekend.

  • @Rather Dashing said: Another way to have predicted it would suck: It was the highest-grossing film of its respective weekend.

    Who needed to wait that long? All it took for me was the first five seconds of the trailer.

  • I only went so I could hold my boyfriend's hand for a whole two hours straight (or however long it was), and I spent most of the movie thinking about stories of mine. Terrible movie, yes, but not worse than I expected.
    There is a line I misunderstood as "they're all dropping like boolean kids!" and that confused me, for the next few minutes I pondered that until I realised the line was "they're all dropping like bowling pins!"

    I don't think it's worth a whole thread (or whatever they charge for it at the theatre... I wouldn't know, I wouldn't have gone as far as pay to watch it) but yeah, it sucked.

  • @Davies said: Man, I resent you paying $16.50 NZD too. This so called "film" was a s**t storm from day one. It's got a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 34% for goodness sakes! It's upsetting to possess the knowledge that this turgid, sorry waste of celluloid made it to #1 at the box-office. Having said that, I'm glad that you acknowledge that the movie was sub-par at best: it's just a shame that the ticket sales couldn't reflect that.

    Yeh just wasnt what is was cracked up to be.

  • @Scnew said: In other breaking news, the sky is blue.

    Speaking of which, it was because of Skyline that I actually have a lot higher opinion of Battle:LA than most seem to. Skyline had to be one of the extremely rare instances in my life where I actually felt like I had legitimately wasted my time/life away. So in comparison to that, Battle:LA was alright.

Add Comment