+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Movies, Music, Books, and Otters (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Battle: Los Angeles (/thread-4904.html)
Battle: Los Angeles - Jody - 11-24-2010
This is Butcher you're talking about here...detached.
Battle: Los Angeles - jstraw - 11-24-2010
<!--quoteo(post=120627:date=Nov 24 2010, 01:23 PM:name=Jody)-->QUOTE (Jody @ Nov 24 2010, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This is Butcher you're talking about here...detached.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A healthy detachment is not Butcher's strong suit.
Battle: Los Angeles - veryzer - 11-24-2010
How can you have a detached anus?
Battle: Los Angeles - Coldneck - 11-24-2010
<!--quoteo(post=120638:date=Nov 24 2010, 02:59 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 24 2010, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How can you have a detached anus?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come over here. I'll show you.
Battle: Los Angeles - Butcher - 03-11-2011
I'm usually on the same page as The Onion...this doesn't bode well.
Battle: Los Angeles review
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Battle: Los Angeles draws entirely on clichés: clichés about a hero about to retire and in need of redemption, clichés about the bonds between granite-cut men, clichés in every speech and “Don’t you die on me!”-type sentiment. And they’re all shouted at top volume.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
33% on Rotten Tomatoes, too...
Battle: Los Angeles - rok - 03-11-2011
Ebert:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Meteors fall near the coasts of the world's major cities. They contain aliens which attack mankind. A platoon of Marines saves Santa Monica. The special effects are outstandingly bad, and the visual style is Queasy-Cam. Starring Aaron Eckhart, a fine actor, here required mostly to scream in closeup. One-half of one star.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Battle: Los Angeles - Scarey - 03-11-2011
Ouch. I don't know that I've ever seen Ebert give a major movie less than a star.
Battle: Los Angeles - Butcher - 03-11-2011
<!--quoteo(post=133431:date=Mar 11 2011, 11:15 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Mar 11 2011, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Ouch. I don't know that I've ever seen Ebert give a major movie less than a star.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's published a book called something like, "I HATED this Movie." It's a collection of all of his best reviews of terrible movies. It's a pretty great read, actually.
Battle: Los Angeles - veryzer - 03-11-2011
Yeah, Ebert torched it. The review was hysterical. He said if you're a man and your friends like this, tell them they're idiots. If you're a woman and a man takes you to see it, tell him you think you need to see someone else. Or something along those lines.
If you can find the review, post it. It's worth it.
Battle: Los Angeles - BT - 03-11-2011
<!--quoteo(post=133431:date=Mar 11 2011, 11:15 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Mar 11 2011, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Ouch. I don't know that I've ever seen Ebert give a major movie less than a star.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's true. But he did give "Raising Arizona" and "The Usual Suspects" 1.5 stars, so a bad review from him isn't exactly a death sentence. Michael Phillips in the Trib gave it 3 stars, and the guy I agree with nearly all the time, James Berardinelli gave it 2.5 stars, so I'm not going to write it off just yet. Plus, the complaints people have about the movie seems like a selling point to me. I have no problem watching guys go from building to building killing aliens.
Battle: Los Angeles - rok - 03-11-2011
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...10309992/-1/RSS
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The dialogue consists almost entirely of terse screams: Watch it! Incoming! Move! Look out! Fire! Move! The only characters I remember 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Battle: Los Angeles - veryzer - 03-11-2011
Eh, it seemed funnier the first time I read it. The last paragraph is still gold though.
Battle: Los Angeles - BT - 03-13-2011
apparently I'm an idiot, because I liked it. It's not fantastic, but it delivered pretty much everything it was promising. I might have a more cohesive post on it later, but it was entertaining.
Battle: Los Angeles - veryzer - 03-13-2011
I think it looks good.
Battle: Los Angeles - funkster - 03-13-2011
I think it looks terrible.