Battle: Los Angeles

We welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions on any of the Verdict sites

Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Movie Mike » Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:42 am

Dan Battle: Los Angeles failed for me not because of the numerous Hollywood clichés but for the fact that it seem to be the bastard child of Blackhawk Down and Aliens but one where I wished that the writers could have maybe screened Ridley Scott's movie a couple more times as the characters in this film were about the worse depiction of soldiers I've seen in some time. Almost every minute of combat the air is filled with Marines whining about how screwed they are and bitching about how they're gonna die. Also pretty much all the characters are lifted from Aliens as Aaron Eckhart is basically playing Hicks, Michelle Rodriguez is doing her standard tough Hispanic chick which is basically Vasquez, Ramon Rodriguez fills in the Lt. Gorman part as 2nd Lt. William Martinez who has never seen combat and defeats the aliens by blowing himself up when they approach, and then the rest of the cast is filled up with hysterical Hudsons.

And though I'm no extraterrestrial military expert I really doubt invaders from space would rely heavily on infantry. Also Earth is not the only place in the Universe that has water as the Saturn's moon Enceladus has liquid water just beneath the surface.
Movie Mike
City Attorney
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Dan Mancini » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:53 am

Movie Mike wrote:Also pretty much all the characters are lifted from Aliens as Aaron Eckhart is basically playing Hicks, Michelle Rodriguez is doing her standard tough Hispanic chick which is basically Vasquez, Ramon Rodriguez fills in the Lt. Gorman part as 2nd Lt. William Martinez who has never seen combat and defeats the aliens by blowing himself up when they approach, and then the rest of the cast is filled up with hysterical Hudsons.

a) Those character types aren't original to Aliens. b) There isn't a single character in Battle: Los Angeles anywhere near as hysterical as Hudson. Even the civilians are more composed. But let's not insult Hudson. Because Paxton is tha bomb.

Movie Mike wrote:And though I'm no extraterrestrial military expert I really doubt invaders from space would rely heavily on infantry. Also Earth is not the only place in the Universe that has water as the Saturn's moon Enceladus has liquid water just beneath the surface.

Suspend disbelief, brother. If there's no alien infantry, the movie is no fun. And, actually, if eradication of humanity while maintaining the water supply is the goal, an infantry would be necessary. You can't do the job entirely with hunter-killer drones. Granted, the aliens could probably have executed a month-long hunter-killer assault, followed by infantry clean-up in order to minimize their own losses, but again: no fun.

Still, as I said in the review, there are legitimate reasons to dislike the movie. So good on ya. You're certainly with the majority. And I'm a well established contrarian a-hole.
User avatar
Dan Mancini
Chief Prosecutor
 
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:17 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Steve T Power » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:00 am

Man, yer gonna hate the Blu-Ray review Mike.
As the ancient Tibetan philosophy states:"Don't start none... won't be none...".
User avatar
Steve T Power
Judge
 
Posts: 5351
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:08 pm
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, CA

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Dan Mancini » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:02 am

Steve T Power wrote:Man, yer gonna hate the Blu-Ray review Mike.

Like.
User avatar
Dan Mancini
Chief Prosecutor
 
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:17 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Movie Mike » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:33 am

Steve T Power wrote:Man, yer gonna hate the Blu-Ray review Mike.

Well I did watch the Blu-Ray and have no qualms with the picture, and I'll admit the aliens did look cool, as were the special effects used in the destruction of L.A. I just wish the first three quarters of the movie had been as good as the last act (which I'll admit was pretty fun). But I found almost every moment of "characterization" to be hamfisted and unbelievable. Example: Everyone in the unit is pissy because Aaron Eckhart went on a mission in the Middle East that resulted in some deaths, but he survived "Boo-hisss!". We're given no reason to believe the deaths were Eckart's fault, it's as if these soldiers don't understand that maybe going into combat could get you killed. I found that whole subplot to be cheap melodrama and really wasn't needed at all.
Movie Mike
City Attorney
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 am
Location: London, Ontario

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Steve T Power » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:04 am

Movie Mike wrote:
Steve T Power wrote:Man, yer gonna hate the Blu-Ray review Mike.

Well I did watch the Blu-Ray and have no qualms with the picture, and I'll admit the aliens did look cool, as were the special effects used in the destruction of L.A. I just wish the first three quarters of the movie had been as good as the last act (which I'll admit was pretty fun). But I found almost every moment of "characterization" to be hamfisted and unbelievable. Example: Everyone in the unit is pissy because Aaron Eckhart went on a mission in the Middle East that resulted in some deaths, but he survived "Boo-hisss!". We're given no reason to believe the deaths were Eckart's fault, it's as if these soldiers don't understand that maybe going into combat could get you killed. I found that whole subplot to be cheap melodrama and really wasn't needed at all.


The flipside to that coin is how they dealt with the issue. It's not some HUGE moment in the film that's played for high drama, it's just Eckart dropping it out there and saying, "Now with that bullshit out of the way, lets keep on truckin. ok?"

Sure the cliches were there, but this is FAR from the first flick to play em, and they actually played them just enough to get us to identify with a few of the characters before they shove em aside. Without em we're left with empty suits. It's the nature of Nantz's past that gets us interested in him as a character, whether we realize it or not. Without the "tired old soldier" schtick or the "tragic last mission" background, he's just that guy who played Two Face.
As the ancient Tibetan philosophy states:"Don't start none... won't be none...".
User avatar
Steve T Power
Judge
 
Posts: 5351
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:08 pm
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, CA

Re: Battle: Los Angeles

Postby Dan Mancini » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:33 am

Movie Mike wrote:Example: Everyone in the unit is pissy because Aaron Eckhart went on a mission in the Middle East that resulted in some deaths, but he survived "Boo-hisss!".

What Steve said. Also, Nantz didn't go on a mission, he led a mission...and everyone died except him. Call them pissy all you want, but I don't think the marines' reactions are unreasonable given the fact they have no history with Nantz and no clue about the quality of his decision-making other than the fact that he survived when every single one of the men in his charge did not. Were it me, I'd be...uh...hesitant. And let's also be clear: None of the marines shirk their duty or are insubordinate. They just have zero reason to respect Nantz, and plenty of reason to distrust him.
User avatar
Dan Mancini
Chief Prosecutor
 
Posts: 4055
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:17 am
Location: Atlanta, GA


Return to Verdict Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest