• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

battlefield los angels who's gona go see it ?

Rate The Movie!


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

It's what I expected it to be, entertaining but predictable. I was hoping the dialog would be a bit more over the top to ham up the cheese factor (in an action movie cheesy, not an alien movie cheesy). Otherwise, it was pretty good. Solid action and I think they handled the marines well.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

I was pleasantly surprised by how un-cheesy it was.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

As I said elsewhere:

Admiral2 says: I don't give a crap if it doesn't have mythos, pathos, Porthos or D'Artangan or whatever literary buzzword its supposed to have.

I don't care if some failed director stuck teaching directing in community college would give it an "F".

I don't care if it sweeps the next Razzies.

I went into this looking to see me some US Marines killin' fukking aliens.

I paid my money and saw me some US Marines killin' fukkin' aliens.

I'm good.

A++

I'm sticking with this.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Well, got out to see this today. It was pretty generic and pretty bad. The writing was awful (particularly the "touching" serial number recitation - but none of that matters now - lol). Seemed like the first half hour was designed to set up every military movie cliche we've ever seen in an attempt to make us give a shit about these characters before they're slaughtered. I cared so little for them, I don't even remember who died when.

There were a few effectively freaky shots early in the invasion, but not much more beyond that. The rest is standard action schlock in which characters we care nothing for do things that we don't care about and save the day. Yay.

This movie seriously could have benefited from an R rating . At least then the audience could have enjoyed some gore with their shitty movie.

It gets a D.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

I loved it. The filmmakers set out to make a movie that had Marines fighting Aliens, and they achieved what they set out to do.

Also, the people saying the vis effects "suck" should shut the fuck up. You have no idea what your talking about. I loved the look of the alien craft (reminiscent of District 9 in many ways) and the integration of the aliens into the scene was damned near seamless in most cases. After seeing the movie that element of Eberts review made him look like a deranged lunatic.

As for the characters? I like them. If you liked Arnie in Predator theres no reason you shouldn't like these guys, Arnie was the same stonewalled tough guy throughout, at least in this one characters move from point A to B, and I don't mean that in a walking sense. The serial number scene was far from a tear jerker, but in the cinematic equivalent of Halo multiplayer, it was touching enough and made the scene where all the fellow marines rappel down the ropes with him all the more poignant.

This shouldn't sweep the Oscars, but it damned well deserves a sequel. It was a solid sci fi action movie, and while it borrowed heavily from Independence Day it damned well surpassed it in some respects.

It was a great flick for shooting aliens. People who went into a movie called "Battle: LA" expecting Citizen Kane need to have their heads checked.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

It was a great flick for shooting aliens.

Exactly. This movie was called "Battle Lost Angeles." It was about a battle...in Los Angeles. I don't know what else people were hoping for.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Here was my post on the film in the other "unofficial" thread.

I agree with another who is puzzled by those complaining about the CGI. It is not bad, seems to be seamless to me. As if I were looking at aliens and their craft.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Battle: Los Angeles

Rated: PG-13

My Grade: B-


---------------------------------------------

Imagine slamming your head into a stainless-steel cabinet for two-hours while someone yells at you while blasting loud music. That's pretty much what this movie is but, somehow, it works out to be pretty fun.

Much of this movie is just a lot of noisy, "in the trenches" style battle scenes of bombs going off and people yelling incomprehensible stuff at each other the rest of it is our characters muttering stuff to one another almost in unintelligible voices. None of the secondary characters are very memorable or distinguishable while in the heavy military gear, the only real memorable characters come from Aaron Eckhart who does a great job, Michele Rodriguez, an Indian civilian and simply for a distinguishing trait a horn-rimmed glasses soldier. We're introduced to other characters who have their moments but, really, hardly any of it means anything over the long run. A small portion of this movie is spent setting these various people up but once they're set-up their little side-plots are pretty much forgotten. The horn-rimmed glasses guy is getting married, poor-man's Matt Damon is suffering from PTSD, the squad's leader is school-trained but has no real-world experience and then we have our hero in Eckhart who's leaving the Marines for civilian life due to survivor's guilt from a previous battle.

He gets his paper work and agrees to give some Marines one last quick training exercise when suddenly he's called into active duty to do "one last mission" before his release goes through. It seems that aliens are landing off the coast of major world series in what's disguised as a meteor shower, our troops are asked to go into a section of San Diego to rescue some civilians in a hospital before the area is carpet-bombed as it's serving -apparently- as the aliens' base of operations. Eckhart's character seems to have a "reputation" now of being someone who saves his own ass at the cost of those under him so the our various soldiers are none to happy to have him second in command of their squad charged with this mission.

Along the way they run into another group of soldiers this one including Michele Rodriguez who we find out was sent in to learn about the aliens' technology/battle strategies. While it's at first assumed the aliens have no air game that hope is soon erased. The aliens we never get a clear look at but an impromptu alien autopsy reveals them to be a biological entity with a vulnerable spot in their chest not too far away from where the human heart is. (Which you'd think they'd be aiming for anyway, but I digress.) But overall the aliens appear to be your typical movie Insectoid/Reptilian style alien seen in every other movie for the last 30 years.

I know I'm ragging on this movie a lot as it has a lot of flaws. The characters are hard if not impossible to care about, it seems to want a "Saving Private Ryan" type story with these soldiers sent in to save a handful of civilians trapped in a San Diego hospital but given the direness of the situation it strikes me as unlikely that such an expedition would've been risked in the middle of a very active battle and a destination in the heart of enemy territory. And, of course, our heroes find a way to defeat the aliens who've mastered intersolar travel but haven't mastered bullet-proof vests, non-projectile weapons, or any kind of shielding (physical or electrical) for their vehicles. Our military chaps, on the other hand, go into battle with large powerful aliens with strong ground vehicles without packing much in the way of heavy firepower like bazookas or seriously high-caliber weaponry.

Action scenes are fun, the "drama" and "plot" scenes are meh as there's not a whole lot of them and not much development to care about the characters but Eckhart turns in a good performance here and the person above who said he seemed "Archer-ian" in his look and mannerisms? I disagree. Eckhart is a lot less stiff than Bakula was in Enterprise. ;) Otherwise the comparison is valid.

It's a fun switch your brain off, see it once and enjoy it sort of movie as the effects and battles in it are very good and well filmed but beyond that the movie has not much to offer, but what I did think during this movie is that it's what "Skyline" should have been. In fact, it seems like it's a lateral-quel to Skyline as it feels like it what was going on in Skyline beyond that stupid damn penthouse.

Fun movie, not sure I'd say it's one to rush out and see, the effects might be worth seeing in theaters as they're quite well done in close to "photo-realistic" as possible but watching this in a few months on rental/Netflix would work too. Wouldn't say it's a "must own" type of movie.

Worth seeing once if you like some pretty hard-core action.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

I enjoyed it... A solid *B* from me.

Very much a "Independence Day" meets "Blackhawk Down" kind of film. Well made and fun/exciting, but it didn't have that extra greatness to give an A rating. The ending was pseudo realistic, I suppose. As upbeat as they could get away with while still being reasonably realistic. I would not object to a sequel, if one is made.

My biggest nitpick would probably be the "going after our water" reason for invasion. (although it is just speculated by the news) Because that makes NO sense. :D There are a heck of a lot more water in much more easily accessible places in the solar system. Surely they have ice-melting technology? :D Jupiter's moon Europa is also suspected to contain just as much (of not more) liquid water as Earth has under its ice.

No, a much more reasonable explanation would just have been that Earth is prime real estate. If the aliens evolved on a similar planet to our own, planets with such great living conditions may be rare. If a sequel is made, hopefully they'll ret-con out the idiotic water explanation. :p
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Yeah the "they're after our water!" thing made zero sense.

"We're the only planet in the observable universe with liquid water!"

Really?! In the entire universe? We're the only ones with liquid water? That's quite a bold statement to make!

I liked the little touch of the news stations showing the DOW at 4K that gave me chuckle for some reason.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Trekker4747,

I made the Archer comment. I think you misunderstood. I didn't say Eckhart acted like Bakula as Archer, just that he would've made for a great Captain Archer. I had checked out a little of the Xindi arc earlier in the week on SyFy Channel and for some reason Eckhart's military cut and manner made me think of Archer. However, I think Eckhart's nice understated emotional delivery would've been far more effective than Bakula during the Xindi crisis. Plus, Eckhart did pretty well with the B:LA action scenes and perhaps would've been as kickass on ENT. It was all just a strange comparison on my part that was intended to compliment Eckhart's performance in the film.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

My biggest nitpick would probably be the "going after our water" reason for invasion. (although it is just speculated by the news) Because that makes NO sense. :D There are a heck of a lot more water in much more easily accessible places in the solar system. Surely they have ice-melting technology? :D Jupiter's moon Europa is also suspected to contain just as much (of not more) liquid water as Earth has under its ice.

Possibly, but to me it seems their space travel technology was extremely limited. It consisted of pretty much just picking a target and hurling yourself towards it at high speed. If that's your only option, you can either choose to go to the inhospitable rock were you face months of hard work extracting what you want OR you can go to a plant which has what you want in abundance and wipe out the indigenous population with superior tech and surprise tactics? If all I wanted was water with no regard for life, I'd go for the latter.

Plus it seems they needed a LOT of water. If they were able to decrease sea levels in a day, they must need it badly. Melting Ice on our planet seems like a simple thing to do, but melting ice out in space? How would you melt and keep something liquid in large quantities when the temperature is just above absolute zero? I was ok with the water hypothesis, because at the moment we are the only planet we know of with Liquid water in abundance. We know some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn have water - but only under shells of Ice as tough as granite a few kilometers thick. It's like drilling for oil at the South Pole vs invading an inferior country that has it in abundance, plus the facilities to extract it already there. And you don't care one bit about the people of the inferior country.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

My biggest nitpick would probably be the "going after our water" reason for invasion. (although it is just speculated by the news) Because that makes NO sense. :D There are a heck of a lot more water in much more easily accessible places in the solar system. Surely they have ice-melting technology? :D Jupiter's moon Europa is also suspected to contain just as much (of not more) liquid water as Earth has under its ice.

Possibly, but to me it seems their space travel technology was extremely limited. It consisted of pretty much just picking a target and hurling yourself towards it at high speed. If that's your only option, you can either choose to go to the inhospitable rock were you face months of hard work extracting what you want OR you can go to a plant which has what you want in abundance and wipe out the indigenous population with superior tech and surprise tactics? If all I wanted was water with no regard for life, I'd go for the latter.

Plus it seems they needed a LOT of water. If they were able to decrease sea levels in a day, they must need it badly. Melting Ice on our planet seems like a simple thing to do, but melting ice out in space? How would you melt and keep something liquid in large quantities when the temperature is just above absolute zero? I was ok with the water hypothesis, because at the moment we are the only planet we know of with Liquid water in abundance. We know some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn have water - but only under shells of Ice as tough as granite a few kilometers thick. It's like drilling for oil at the South Pole vs invading an inferior country that has it in abundance, plus the facilities to extract it already there. And you don't care one bit about the people of the inferior country.

Plus, it's possible they also wanted to live here once they were done. If you were looking for a planet to colonize, wouldn't you go to the one where you already know you can live?
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

It was my impression despite the news speculation of why they were here...the first guess seemed more on target...that is was a first step colonization mixed in with a genocide.

It just seemed to me that the water useage was to fuel their weapons and defensive systems....i didnt see any water stealing facilities ala the Old V miniseries.

and to be honest I rather liked
the fact that the one victory shown was just that...one victory...only one command and control ship out of the twenty in all of the cities...sure they know what to look for but the film never says whether they were alll destroyed....

The fact that it only covered day one of the invasion was kinda neat for a change..the climacic battle didn't end the war for once...just gave us a fighting chance...I mean we dont even know how quickly the aliens might rebuild those C&C ships either....so its still pretty open ended :)

So i rather liked such an original approach for a change

Vons
 
Last edited:
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Vonstadt I tried to read your post, twice but your avatar is distracting. Where did you get that?
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

I enjoyed it. It was a grim n' gritty war movie... with aliens. That's what I came for.

My inferences on the alien invaders:
there's two races on their planet. The floaty tentacled ones conquered and enslaved the foot ones. They now use them as enslaved conscript soldiers. This is why their gun is surgically attached to their arm. So all the bad guys they were killing were really terrified slaves being forced into combat.

This explains why the jets are computer controlled and there's just one central control node. Because the actual conqueror aliens are very few in number and work through slaves and robots.

I didn't have time to see, but I could've sworn the commanders were holding a gun rather than having it part of their arm.
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

What I've learned from Independence Day and now this movie? Don't have your auxillary craft powered by a central source that can failry easily be taken out by primitive weapons. Would it be that bad for every craft to be independantly powered and controlled?
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Speaking of ID4...
I can't believe they never even mentioned nuclear weapons in the entire movie! The aliens had no energy shields. Nukes would have torn them apart. At one point they say they're abandoning LA... so why not nuke it into cinders?
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Speaking of ID4...
I can't believe they never even mentioned nuclear weapons in the entire movie! The aliens had no energy shields. Nukes would have torn them apart. At one point they say they're abandoning LA... so why not nuke it into cinders?
As soon as my friends and I got out into the lobby, I swear we all said at the same time "where the hell were the nukes!?".
 
Re: BATTLE: LOS ANGELES(Film 2011) Grade/Discuss

Even in ID4 the use of nukes was performed under heavy resignation. They're clearly a "last resort" option and even then you've got a lot of after-effects to worry about not to mention to chain reaction of "Well, the Americans are use nukes, so.." would like make the cure worse than the disease if you catch my drift.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top