Battle: Los Angeles

Chris D Walker · March 14, 2011

Did anyone watch this over the weekend? I saw it on Saturday and I thought it was a good movie. It does have cliches and cheese, but it's not over the top like a Roland Emmerich movie (take your pick).

Critics appear to not like the style of cinematography which I thought worked really well in heightening its realism, despite there being an army of evil alien invaders. The camera for the most part stayed at ground level, in amongst the squad as if the cameraman were physically there in the story as a participant instead of taking the more usual God's eye approach. It appears the DP does enjoy his 100mm lens. One observation I made was that the framing was often very tight in its composition with high eyelines; it made me feel as if they had cropped to 2.40 when they originally had composed for a 1.85 frame. I also enjoy that it was shot on film (don't know the specs - 3-perf Super 35 on Fuji is my guess).

So, what does everybody else think?

Thanks to all who read and those who reply.

John Sprung · March 14, 2011

I've only seen the ads, and was put off by the weak attempt to link it to the real WWII events of Feb 25, 1942.

-- J.S.

John Holland · March 14, 2011

I am so pleased i didnt have to pay to see this pile of junk . Aaron Eckhart must win best chin in a supporting role at next years awards.

Chris D Walker · March 14, 2011

Do you own any movies that you'd consider dumb? That kind of movie where you can just sit back and switch off from the world? Forget taste, substance and have some fun? You can't judge them with the same merits as something from the greats of film because they serve a different function. A film will move you, a movie will rock you. Battle: LA isn't a film, it's a movie.

I can change from being in film mode to movie mode no problem. I watch the Friday the 13th movies knowing that they're bad. My sister watches Van Damme movies knowing he's going to do split kicks and whoop ass. There are limits, however; no-one in my family will watch a Steven Seagal movie. Before watching Battle: LA the last film I saw in the theaters was Black Swan, and I would class Black Swan as being down the middle between a movie and a film because I had a great time watching it.

My best of last year is utter rubbish but I will watch it over and over again. I can imagine watching Battle: LA at home with some friends and a few drinks because its a lite bite, not a Derek Jarman film (I once had a physical reaction to a Derek Jarman film because I hated it so much).

Edited March 14, 2011 by Chris D Walker

Adrian Sierkowski · March 14, 2011

I own Transformers......

I'm actually looking forward to Battle:La just because I know it's going to have some huge explosions and I won't have to think about anything just go with it. And, as mentioned, I think that's great, fine, and dandy. Jurassic Park is another movie which is like that. It's not much for writing or cinematography, plot, or logic (couldn't they just neuter the dinosaurs?) but man, is it a great show.

John Sprung · March 14, 2011

(couldn't they just neuter the dinosaurs?)

Now *that* would be something to have on your resume..... ;-)

-- J.S.

KH Martin · March 17, 2011

http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/features/aliens-invade-tinseltown.html

I talked to the VFX super and DP on this film, this might be of interest.

Markshaw · March 24, 2011

I actually rather enjoyed this film. Still have not seen Skyline so cannot make comparison. At least I cared for the characters. Will sound awesome on Blu-ray. :D

Joseph Arch · March 27, 2011

One of the worst films ever made. I saw the trailer. I am beginning to think directors have to sleep with people to get the job.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Joseph Arch

Phil Rhodes · March 27, 2011

That kind of movie where you can just sit back and switch off from the world?

I know what you mean.

I tend toward the opinion that things like The Fifth Element and Moulin Rouge and are great examples of this done well. It's fun, diversion, a couple of hours of entertainment. Anything that makes the visuals a big part of the value of the thing leans toward this, but it's all good anyway.

Back here in the old world I've only seen the trailers for Battle, but it seems to be another one that was going for the "pure entertainment" approach, that were trying to just be fun, but ended up trapped by the assumption that this sort of thing done well is somehow undemanding. There's a difference between a piece of fun that's not wearing some political or moral point on its sleeve, and something that's just slack and obvious.

P

Jonathan Bowerbank · March 28, 2011

Haven't seen it, but have had a few discussions with people who have. I take it the film should have gone either way, super serious and well done or super campy and very enjoyable...I guess they tried to hit a middle ground and failed miserably.

Joseph Arch · March 28, 2011

With flying colours.

Markshaw · March 31, 2011

Different strokes I guess.

Brian Hulnick · April 8, 2011

Having seen this movie, I'm glad that I have pretty eclectic tastes in movies.

Christian Appelt · April 23, 2011

Usually I chose a seat at the distance of the screen's width. Now I don't mind handheld shots and a bit of shaking, but when I watched BATTLE: LOS ANGELES on a 72 ft. screen, it became so unpleasant that I moved back to about 1,8x screen width. Even then, I found the cinematography disturbing. Too many TV-style closeups in the first ten minutes, you should have a reason if you treat the audience to Sergio-Leone-size portraits.

I think I understand what the filmmakers intended, but for me it did not work. In my opinion, only Aaron Eckhart's fine performance held together this movie. Not that he or any other actor had much help from the script, even a popcorn movie should have some intelligent dialogue lines.

I saw a 35mm print with decent sharpness in the few places where it was not destroyed intentionally.

Certainly you can use techniques like that if the director knows how to do it, but use it constantly for almost two hours and it becomes a nuisance. Heavy shaking even in a simple office scene like Eckhart talking about his retirement is just bad filmmaking.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Christian Appelt

Markshaw · April 26, 2011

A lot of people complained about the shaky handheld camera effects on the Bourne movies. I actually did not mind in the slightest.

Brian Hulnick · May 3, 2011

Usually I chose a seat at the distance of the screen's width. Now I don't mind handheld shots and a bit of shaking, but when I watched BATTLE: LOS ANGELES on a 72 ft. screen, it became so unpleasant that I moved back to about 1,8x screen width. Even then, I found the cinematography disturbing. Too many TV-style closeups in the first ten minutes, you should have a reason if you treat the audience to Sergio-Leone-size portraits.

I think I understand what the filmmakers intended, but for me it did not work. In my opinion, only Aaron Eckhart's fine performance held together this movie. Not that he or any other actor had much help from the script, even a popcorn movie should have some intelligent dialogue lines.

I saw a 35mm print with decent sharpness in the few places where it was not destroyed intentionally.

Certainly you can use techniques like that if the director knows how to do it, but use it constantly for almost two hours and it becomes a nuisance. Heavy shaking even in a simple office scene like Eckhart talking about his retirement is just bad filmmaking.

That does appear to be the effect they wanted. That whole documentary feel. Putting you right in the thick of the action.

Markshaw · May 10, 2011

As I never saw Skyline I cannot make a direct comparison. I did feel this was a fairly good popcorn movie. I never went in there expecting SHAKESPEARE and so was not disappointed.

Brian Hulnick · May 17, 2011

Face it, it was poop but pretty entertaining poop.

Markshaw · May 29, 2011

I was looking at various Blu-ray sites and it would seem that various countries renamed this movie, also Fast Five. They should not be allowed to do this. A movie title is part of the movie and the name should stay, wherever it is shown.

Brian Hulnick · June 1, 2011

I actually prefer the title some others gave to Fast Five, The Fast And The Furious Five: Rio Heist sounds much better. Our title sounds much more like a fruit drink.