Battle Los Angeles

I am loathe to admit I saw the C. Thomas one as well as the sequel. My father-in-law loves crap movies.

 

Haven't seen either, but I did watch two seasons of the 1980s TV series.

 

Saw a sneak peak of this tonight.

Let's put it this way. If you're looking for a brainless movie with great special effects, see it in theaters.

It's not a bad film. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But, to me, a bad film is a film that tries and fails at being something it's not. (Spiderman 3 for instance).

This is just your everyday, run of the mill popcorn flick.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I liked it but only because I like the genre and Aaron Eckheart (sp*) is a damn fun actor to watch.

That's the good. Here's the bad... this is the cinematic equivalent of what it would look like if Cloverfield and Independence Day had a baby.

In the middle of this movie, pretend for a second that this is occurring in the same cinematic universe as Cloverfield. (I.E. New York got one Cloverfield monster, LA got 50). It's not that difficult to believe they're the same flick.

There's very little in terms of motive for the alien attack (When you find out the theory on why they've invaded, you'll likely think "Really? Seriously? That's the best you can do?") and it just all happens so nonchalantly that it seems like the writers had great ideas for special effects and couldn't wait to start blowing shit up.

Say what you will about Independence Day but that movie at least took the time to make it seem like the aliens invading was a big deal. Here? Well, here you basically find out the same way you would find out about your local city councilman getting arrested (In between commercials on American Idol, of course).

I think the biggest problem people are going to have with it is how closely it resembles Independence Day and I am trying not to spoil anything but when you watch it, you'll likely see where I think the comparisons are.

All in all, not a bad flick (Especially since I saw it for free). Some really good moments (The laser scene), some awfully f-ed up moments (I was completely uncomfortable in the put-down scene) and a whole heck of a lot of "Oh, that was cool. What's next?" moments.

6/10 if you like disaster movies. 2/10 if you don't.

 

Sad to hear ... not sure I expected anything more, but still.

 

"CGI? Fuck you, bitches! We don't need no CGI to destroy Los Angeles!"

 

I've been a big Eckhart fan since "In the Company of Men" and "Your Friends and Neighbors" both of which I would have counted among my favorite films of all-time when I was in my 20s.

They're both still great, but my tastes aren't quite as dark as they were a decade ago.

 

I was looking forward to this, then i saw the avclub review -- d-.

 

Ebert has held onto his fastball better than most writers can dream of.

 

I saw Aaron Eckhart on The Daily Show and Jon Stewart made a hilarious comment, saying something like, "You know, when the aliens come down they are totally going to know what we are going to try to do to eliminate them just by watching these movies. Like, if one duct is open and can destroy a whole battelship, they will just close that duct."

 

I am getting tired of watching aliens destroy U.S. cities and Japanese cities. How about Beijing, Mumbai or Rio? They have great locations, too.

 

Shot in Louisiana.

Battle "LA," indeed.

No sale.

Posting a negative review?

What, you didn't get an advance screening of this one?

 

I was going to take my son to see it today after picking him up from school, but he wasn't feeling well. Then I read ebert's review. Feel like I dodged a bullet.